# Arizona becomes the Anti-immigrant gapital of the US



## renzoip (Apr 23, 2010)

WTF...

U.S.?s Toughest Immigration Law Is Signed in Arizona - NYTimes.com


- Politics aside, I find this highly insulting to all the people of the United States. How are you supposed to suspect someone is undocumented or not?? Obviously, this is an invitation for racial profiling. Worst of all, it will affect US citizens and residents too since people may get in trouble for forgetting their wallets at home or for providing shelter or even transportation to an undocumented person, even if this one is a family members. I believe this outright violates constitutional rights of citizens as no one should be stopped by the police without probable cause. 

Not only that but illegal entrance/stay into the country is legally a civil offense not a criminal offense. And to add insult to injury, these "criminals", once arrested, are denied of the constitutional rights such as fair and speedy trial, being judge by a jury of peers, cruel and unusual punishment, among others. This law has been condemned by both Reps and Dems because it is a systematic way to constrain a sector of the population from any kind of upward social mobility.

Regardless of how one could feel about undocumented immigrants, I believe this trade off of democratic values and constitutional rights for the sake of "national security" is absolutely irresponsible.Talk about government being too involved in people's life... 

End of my rant.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 23, 2010)

Ah, only two more months in this scorched desert.

Though, I will say, I'm not entirely against this law.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 23, 2010)

Man I'm split on this one. I think immigration reform is a definite must (especially in states like Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas) but this is not the way to do it. This will probably be the only time I'll ever agree with the bastard, but Cardinal Mahoney has a point. This reeks of nazism. (recall that jews had to wear star of davids to identify themselves.)

I'm not sure in what way we could reform, but employing illegal immigrants is still a problem where I live. I don't have a problem with immigrants, I just want them to sign the guest book on the way in ya know. Maybe say hi, instead of sneaking in and flooding the job market.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 24, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> Man I'm split on this one. I think immigration reform is a definite must (especially in states like Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas) but this is not the way to do it. This will probably be the only time I'll ever agree with the bastard, but Cardinal Mahoney has a point. This reeks of nazism. (recall that jews had to wear star of davids to identify themselves.)
> 
> I'm not sure in what way we could reform, but employing illegal immigrants is still a problem where I live. I don't have a problem with immigrants, I just want them to sign the guest book on the way in ya know. Maybe say hi, instead of sneaking in and flooding the job market.



I know what you are saying. I mean, I'm not saying that illegal immigration is ok or that the government should reward people for breaking the law. It's more about constitutional rights and civil liberties what I complain about. Also, while many think of undocumented migrants as poor people who work on fields/factories/gardening, there is a large sector of middle and upper middle class undocumented people who enter the country legally and stay past their visa time. Most of these people rather use an entrepreneurial mode of production (opening small businesses). So I think if anything, the punishment should fit the "crime". 

It's just crazy to think that for instance, NY Revolutionary Muslims who send death threats to American citizens are granted more constitutional rights than these people.


----------



## jpxplayer (Apr 24, 2010)

This is about our population growing at a fantastic rate we cannot sustain. Keep in mind the legal immigrants are on social programs.
They like the Unions are draining us monetarily. 
This was once a land of opportunity.. America offers freedom.
Over the last many years it has offered a Free ride for most immigrants. It has to end. California is broke because of immigrants. The State has more than a 50% immigrant population. The crime rate is highest in the Nation. They have to go home. We simply cannot afford them. They are Anchor's.
We can thank our corrupt politicians.. For them massive numbers were all about votes.
I say we vote out all incumbent politicians on Nov. 4th. Lets vote in all new fair minded who won't sell there souls. We need a clean slate.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 24, 2010)

Well I for one see this law passing as a good thing. I'm an immigrant AND I'm Latino and I still think this is needed. Sure it's ripe for abuse, that's a given with just about any law. But it's Arizona's choice, the people spoke, or their elected officials did on their behalf. Something, anything, needs to be done with the Illegal Immigration issue. While this may seem a bit heavy handed, the times have called for a heavy handed solution.

No more pussy footing around the issue. Since opening up the border and providing amnesty isn't going to fly, you get this instead. Maybe at some point a better balance can be struck. The way I see it, illegal immigrants have no US rights. I don't give a flying fuck if they're here already, in my mind they have no constitutional protection or special status other than breaking the law. They should be deported back to their country to wait at the end of the line like everyone else trying to get over here legitimately. There should be fewer roadblocks to becoming a citizen or permanent resident if you can prove:

1) You're willing to work for a living and not sit on your fat fucking ass watching Springer, collecting food stamps and WIC benefits

2) You've proven you're willing and able to learn, speak, read and write English

3) You've proven that no greater than 10% of your monthly income will go right back across the border to help your ailing family/friends back in "insert country of origin here"

If they're willing to adhere to those 3 things, then by all means, come to our country. Other than that, fuck off.


----------



## InTheRavensName (Apr 24, 2010)

^ This. Honestly, I wish we'd bring in something similar in England.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 24, 2010)

orb451 said:


> 1) You're willing to work for a living and not sit on your fat fucking ass watching Springer, collecting food stamps and WIC benefits
> 
> 2) You've proven you're willing and able to learn, speak, read and write English
> 
> ...



I can agree with the first 2. But on the third count, I think people should be able to do spend their income however legal way they wish. Do I think sending money back is a great idea? No, but after all they its their income, not mine.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Apr 24, 2010)

jpxplayer said:


> They like the Unions are draining us monetarily.




Being the son of a 32 year UAW member, I have to disagree with you here.

Worker's rights are vastly more important than money.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 24, 2010)

jpxplayer said:


> This is about our population growing at a fantastic rate we cannot sustain. Keep in mind the legal immigrants are on social programs.
> They like the Unions are draining us monetarily.
> This was once a land of opportunity.. America offers freedom.
> Over the last many years it has offered a Free ride for most immigrants. It has to end. California is broke because of immigrants. The State has more than a 50% immigrant population. The crime rate is highest in the Nation. They have to go home. We simply cannot afford them. They are Anchor's.
> ...



For one, I think using such a harsh measure to control population growth is something I would expect from a state like China, not the US. Also, both immigrants (documented or undocumented) and non immigrants contribute to crime rate. However, there is a bigger correlation between crime rate and economic situation. Crime rate generally increases as the economy situation, even in highly homogeneous societies.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 24, 2010)

renzoip said:


> For one, I think using such a harsh measure to control population growth is something I would expect from a state like China, not the US. Also, both immigrants (documented or undocumented) and non immigrants contribute to crime rate. However, there is a bigger correlation between crime rate and economic situation. Crime rate generally increases as the economy situation, even in highly homogeneous societies.



Though the economy doesn't do too well when illegal immigrants are sending the bulk of their paychecks back to their country of origin. Nor when we (the US) has to pay for social programs, as well as miss out on potential tax revenue. 

It's all interconnected.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 24, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Though the economy doesn't do too well when illegal immigrants are sending the bulk of their paychecks back to their country of origin. Nor when we (the US) has to pay for social programs, as well as miss out on potential tax revenue.
> 
> It's all interconnected.


 
I see what you are saying but it takes a lot more than just that for the economy to decline. Again, I don't agree they should do that. I also think that social programs should be available but much more limited in order to reduce dependency. On the other hand, if these people can pay a fine for breaking the law, and have a permit that will allow them to drive, work, study, and open a bank account, they will be able to pull themselves by their own bootstraps, pay taxes and become productive members of society like you and I. Let's also keep in mind that there is a significant sector of undocumented people of medium & upper medium class who came here legally and support themselves through their businesses and study paying out of state tuition. Therefore, they have no government dependency or need to send money back. What a reform could do for them is provide opportunities for business to grow and start actually provide employment.

Just saying...


----------



## orb451 (Apr 24, 2010)

renzoip said:


> On the other hand, if these people can pay a fine for breaking the law, and have a permit that will allow them to drive, work, study, and open a bank account, they will be able to pull themselves by their own bootstraps, pay taxes and become productive members of society like you and I.



Ideally. Ideally that's what we would expect and want to happen. But I think the reality is far from that. Too many of them come over here from Mexico because that's who we're talking about, and start baby-mills. Pumping out kid after kid knowing full well how and what to do to game the system. Yes there definitely should be limits on welfare and the ability to sit unproductively whilst the rest of us pay for it. I agree that some middle and upper class immigrants have proven their ability to come here and pay their fair share, don't need to send money back and are largely assimilated into the general population.

However, I believe they are the exception and not the rule. The rest need to come here and get jobs, and they need to speak, read and write English fluently. 

If this law makes it more difficult for them to sit on their asses when they get here or makes it more difficult for them to leech off of our resources (welfare, foodstamps, WIC, etc) then I'm all for it. If some off them get all butt hurt because of profiling or some other bullshit they should look inwards towards their OWN communities and start self-policing them. Encourage their OWN people to get jobs, stay out of gangs, off of drugs, off the streets and to work and live productive lives and to blend into this wonderful country of ours. You don't blend in by refusing to speak the language. You don't blend in spending all your money on solely Latin owned establishments. You don't blend in by sending large chunks of your money straight back across the border to subsidize your brother's drug habit. 

America is a melting pot, that means ALL these cultures can co-exist. You don't automatically lose your wonderful *identity* just by speaking the language. If anything you have a leg UP on your competition in the job market because you can read, speak and write fluent English AND Spanish. That makes you more LIKELY to find a job, any job.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 24, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Ideally. Ideally that's what we would expect and want to happen. But I think the reality is far from that. Too many of them come over here from Mexico because that's who we're talking about, and start baby-mills. Pumping out kid after kid knowing full well how and what to do to game the system. Yes there definitely should be limits on welfare and the ability to sit unproductively whilst the rest of us pay for it. I agree that some middle and upper class immigrants have proven their ability to come here and pay their fair share, don't need to send money back and are largely assimilated into the general population.
> 
> However, I believe they are the exception and not the rule. The rest need to come here and get jobs, and they need to speak, read and write English fluently.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't oppose a law that restricts the access to social programs for people who really don't deserve it. But that IMO is an issue relating income rather than legal status. Here in Fl, people blame other minorities (who do have legal documents) for leeching into the system, pumping kid after kid and all that stuff. In fact, most societies have a group within them who are blamed of such things. I agree that more people need to look inwards to their societies and self-police them. Many people and NGO make such efforts but more needs to be done. Having that said, I also think that providing access to upward social mobility can help many people stay out of crime/gangs/drugs/welfare. 

As far as integration and identity, its interesting that here in Fl, we have a large Cuban exile community who have been able to thrive through entrepreneurship. However, they have relied on an enclave where they sell to, buy from and hire people of their own community. Many don't even speak English since they don't find it "necessary" and will hardly hire you if you don't speak Spanish. That does not exactly promote integration into the mainstream US society. However, since they are granted legal residence as soon as they get here, nobody seems to have a problem with that. It's their private businesses and its their prerogative what they want to do with them. 

Either way, this isn't only about Latinos. There are plenty Asian and Eastern European immigrants who don't have documents that qualify as a proof of legal residence. And it is not even only about the undocumented, this would affect legal immigrants, permanent residents and US citizens that may look suspicious.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 24, 2010)

There should be fewer roadblocks to becoming a citizen or permanent resident if you can prove:

1) You're willing to work for a living and not sit on your fat fucking ass watching Springer, collecting food stamps and WIC benefits

2) You've proven you're willing and able to learn, speak, read and write English

3) You've proven that no greater than 10% of your monthly income will go right back across the border to help your ailing family/friends back in "insert country of origin here"

If they're willing to adhere to those 3 things, then by all means, come to our country. Other than that, fuck off.[/QUOTE]

QFT!

and with that 3rd one, quite a few illegal immigrants cross the border and get goverment assistance and use that money to pay coyotes (smugglers) to bring their family over with them too.

You know if it was less than 1,000 people a year I might not even care that much. But when you're seeing your community become mostly latino in short order, then it's time to put up some restrictions. Again, nothing against latinos, but also again, please come here legally. There is a reason you have to wait quite a while to get in. 

Meanwhile guys like me (U.S. native born) go to work at a walmart or a jack in the box and find that 95% of the working force there is hispanic and they have a hispanic only attitude (no gringos allowed) I can't help but be pissed. Not to mention I've been turned down for jobs because I can't fluently speak Spanish. (and this is for simple shit like stocking the backroom mind you. Not for shit like becoming a doctor where you are obligated to talk to people of multiple ethnic backgrounds)

Call me a lazy asshole but why the fuck should I be forced to learn anything other than English when this is primarily an English speaking country? Because I might hurt the feelings of people that shouldn't even legally be here? They have no constitutional protection because they are not U.S. citizens. Only U.S. citizens can enjoy the rights and privileges of the U.S. Constitution. You want those rights? Take the proper steps through I.N.S.
Don't come here illegally and expect to have any of that kind of protection.

It is through that god awful term Political Correctness that things have become a clusterfuck in the southwestern states. Natives can't find jobs because illegals have flooded the job market (and the blame has to go on the corporations that hire them as well. They do so knowingly and as a means to exploit illegal immigrants as cheap labor since they can be paid under the table and far below minimum wage. Who are the illegals gonna complain to right? Companies can simply blackmail them into silence by threatening to turn them in to I.N.S.)

This is a sensitive issue for sure but as orb said, we need to stop beating around the bush and look at the facts. The U.S. has more immigrants than it can provide for and we need to close the floodgates for a while or face worse overpopulation than we are already experiencing.

Oh and before anyone thinks that this is a racist rant understand that I live in southern california where this is a real problem. I don't see a ton of Asian or eastern europeans flooding the job markets here. It's illegal mexicans. Plain and simple. If it were any other race (white, black, brown or otherwise) I'd be railing against that shit too.


----------



## Varcolac (Apr 24, 2010)

So whatever happened to "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free"?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 24, 2010)

Varcolac said:


> So whatever happened to "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free"?



Well, it turns out they weren't really tired, just lazy. They just keep staying poor from either not working or sending all the money they do make to their respective "homelands". As for "free" we didn't mean free from taxes, nor did we mean free ride. 

By the way, wasn't that inscription inscribed on a plaque mounted in the Statue of Liberty, which is located at Ellis Island, which was meant to be a hub for LEGAL immigration? 

There's a huge difference between legal immigration, and illegal immigration.

Any other 125 year old quotes meant for fund raising?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 24, 2010)

I better stay out of the sun and keep my beard shaved in fear that this spreads Eastward.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 24, 2010)

Varcolac said:


> So whatever happened to "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free"?



Whatever happened to the jobs and benefits that should be going to those that are here legally? Sure, if you jumped through the hoops and did all you're supposed to do, then by all means, come and prosper. But if you wanna sneak in to live off of the hard work of others and exploit them, then get the fuck out. They have a word for that.......it's called trespassing.

Another way to put it:
You have a great home right? You have a fridge full of food, all your guitars and equipment. You have nice furniture and plenty of space in the house. Now if a homeless guy you meet really needs a place to stay to get his/her life back on track, you might let 'em crash at your place right? But what would be the conditions of that? They'd have to bring in some cash to pay for the food they eat, and the utilities they use up. Only fair right? But what happens when it gets to be too much and they devour the food in one sitting, destroy the furniture, get all pissy when you wanna change the channel on YOUR t.v.,etc.? It might be time for them to go right.

Now think of it this way....Say you don't wanna help 'em and that's their problem. (and don't pretend like you don't do this otherwise there would be a fuckton of homeless people in your house right now)
But say that homeless person follows you home and figures out how to sneak in and stay under the radar. All the sudden that delicious pizza you saved for lunch for work the next day disappears, your shit keeps coming up missing and you finally discover that this person has been living in your home without permission for a while. What are you gonna do? Let 'em live there saying 'oh well, fuck it. they needed a place to crash anyways."? Hell no, you're gonna call the cops and get their ass thrown in jail for breaking and entering among other charges.

Same thing here. Let 'em in if their gonna really get their life straight and do something with it. Otherwise let the leeches burn to a fuckin' crisp out in the hot sun. There are plenty of ways (legal ones) to get into this country. I don't feel too sorry for people that break the law as a means to take food out of my mouth.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 25, 2010)

I remember learning about this thing in grade school... It was called Ellis Island, and they screened immigrants. They also made it very hard to get in, and you were rejected for damn near anything. They also had to take a citizenship class from what I remember, and it even broke up families. Do remember, most of these families didn't have money for their relatives to make the trek multiple times in hopes of entrance to America. Oh yeah, and their last names were changed to something a little less "ethnic" and confusing to the American public. Definitely think the Europeans had it a a lot harder in this regard, and during WW2, many would agree we should've let Jewish people in wholesale, made everyone of them legal, and save them from Nazi Germany's iron fist. The jewish were a lot more deserving of citizenship than anyone else who has came threw Ellis Island legally or threw one of our borders illegally.

I remember hearing those countries further south than Mexico, are not allowed entrance into Mexico at all, but that's just what I heard so I may be totally wrong.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Well, it turns out they weren't really tired, just lazy. They just keep staying poor from either not working or sending all the money they do make to their respective "homelands". As for "free" we didn't mean free from taxes, nor did we mean free ride.
> 
> By the way, wasn't that inscription inscribed on a plaque mounted in the Statue of Liberty, which is located at Ellis Island, which was meant to be a hub for LEGAL immigration?
> 
> ...


 
Definitely this.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 25, 2010)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I remember learning about this thing in grade school... It was called Ellis Island, and they screened immigrants. They also made it very hard to get in, and you were rejected for damn near anything. They also had to take a citizenship class from what I remember, and it even broke up families. Do remember, most of these families didn't have money for their relatives to make the trek multiple times in hopes of entrance to America. Oh yeah, and their last names were changed to something a little less "ethnic" and confusing to the American public. Definitely think the Europeans had it a a lot harder in this regard, and during WW2, many would agree we should've let Jewish people in wholesale, made everyone of them legal, and save them from Nazi Germany's iron fist. The jewish were a lot more deserving of citizenship than anyone else who has came threw Ellis Island legally or threw one of our borders illegally.
> 
> I remember hearing those countries further south than Mexico, are not allowed entrance into Mexico at all, but that's just what I heard so I may be totally wrong.



In regards to Mexico, you would be right. Many undocumented Guatemalan citizens that live there or pass by there are harassed and mistreated by Mexican authorities. However, I could not use that fact as a way to justify the treatment many Mexicans get here; it's not their fault that their government is messed up. 

In regards to Europeans and Ellis Island, I feel bad for all the people who had to go through all that hassle and wish nobody who is trying to enter legally has to deal with those kind of situations. I know esecially Southern/Eastern Europeans had it terrible; living in ghettos being accused of taking jobs, pumping kids, over populating, bringing crime, etc. I'm glad that over time they have been able to integrate into the society and that their posterity has thrived. 

But it was not neither repressive laws nor that state freebies that helped achieve this. It was access to social mobility through the private industry. The state does not need to give people things. As long as they just stay out of their way, they should be able to succeed if they want to. We should not just assume that "they" want to live like that forever.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 25, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> Whatever happened to the jobs and benefits that should be going to those that are here legally? Sure, if you jumped through the hoops and did all you're supposed to do, then by all means, come and prosper. But if you wanna sneak in to live off of the hard work of others and exploit them, then get the fuck out. They have a word for that.......it's called trespassing.
> 
> Another way to put it:
> You have a great home right? You have a fridge full of food, all your guitars and equipment. You have nice furniture and plenty of space in the house. Now if a homeless guy you meet really needs a place to stay to get his/her life back on track, you might let 'em crash at your place right? But what would be the conditions of that? They'd have to bring in some cash to pay for the food they eat, and the utilities they use up. Only fair right? But what happens when it gets to be too much and they devour the food in one sitting, destroy the furniture, get all pissy when you wanna change the channel on YOUR t.v.,etc.? It might be time for them to go right.
> ...




Many people use the example of "your house" or "you boat" when talking about this. However, it should be noted that as opposed to any of your personal property, the US is a country and ot belongs not just to you but to a lot of citizens who have very different points of view about different issues. 

Also, there are many undocumented middle/upper class undocumented immigrants. Who enter the country legally under tourist/student/work/professional/business visas or political asylum. In order to qualify for these, applicants have to proof significant income and social status. Many of these people stay past their visa times and therefore become "kinda/sorta like undocumented". However, they sustain themselves from their own businesses, are educated, spend their money here, have nice houses with plama TV's, lab tops, Iphones, etc. One couldn't blame them for leeching from the government nor for buying luxury goods. I don't see why these category of immigrants should be lumped into the same category as people who enter illegally, and leech from the government.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 25, 2010)

renzoip said:


> Many people use the example of "your house" or "you boat" when talking about this. However, it should be noted that as opposed to any of your personal property, the US is a country and ot belongs not just to you but to a lot of citizens who have very different points of view about different issues.
> 
> Also, there are many undocumented middle/upper class undocumented immigrants. Who enter the country legally under tourist/student/work/professional/business visas or political asylum. In order to qualify for these, applicants have to proof significant income and social status. Many of these people stay past their visa times and therefore become "kinda/sorta like undocumented". However, they sustain themselves from their own businesses, are educated, spend their money here, have nice houses with plama TV's, lab tops, Iphones, etc. One couldn't blame them for leeching from the government nor for buying luxury goods. I don't see why these category of immigrants should be lumped into the same category as people who enter illegally, and leech from the government.




Well think about this. How does stock work? You buy a share of stock and you then own a small (in most cases tiny) percentage of that company. U.S. citizenship works the same way. As a citizen you then can lay claim as this country being part yours. Why? You get to decide who runs for office to represent you, where you live, what you do for a living, how your money is being spent (idyllically speaking of course.  ) what laws should be passed and who's allowed into the country. (again, I disagree with the law Arizona passed, but I also agree with Orb that the people have spoken and it became law) Basically you can't do these things if you don't own something/it's not yours. The U.S. belongs to every single one of it's citizens and that's it. (well maybe China, but the economy is a whole other fish to fry )

The "bring me me your tired and weary..." statement was made when the population was a fraction of what it is now. It tends to lose any meaning when people are literally fighting just to make ends meet. They're also fighting for the same job. Only 1 person gets it and when you already have 60 applicants for said position who are all very much qualified for said position and all of them are natural citizens. Now add another 200 illegal applicants that work for less than minimum wage, don't pay taxes (that send you, your spouse, and/or your kids to school as well as pay for things like fixing the roads you drive on to go to work and the retirement/social security that you pay into) and they send that money out of the country so that THIS country doesn't even get to collect sales tax to pay for the government programs that they demand we give them. Fair? Fuck no! And as I said in an earlier post, they work for far less than minimum wage (try about $2-4/hr) and are willing to work 12-15 hours a day without a single break. As a company that cares about only the bottom line, that bait is just too tempting to resist.

But we could use the, "well life isn't fair." retort. Sure, I'll use it when they try to sneak in here to mooch off of the people that do live here legally and get their ass deported.


Also, those that stay past the expiration date of their visas are just as guilty. I don't care how productive they are, the law is the law. The people have spoken and they need to man the fuck up and take care of that shit or get out. We have the immigration laws that we have to protect the American people and their interests. Why the hell should we worry about anybody else? Take care of your own first, then when you have the means, look out for the other guy. You can't help anybody if you can't help yourself first. Otherwise you just drag them down with you. Keeping with the "house" analogy, let's take a look at this.

That homeless guy you let stay at your place, part of the condition is that they work with your landlord to get on the lease to stay for an extended period of time. (happens pretty often right?) Well that time's up and that person needs to go back to the landlord to get permission to stay even longer. What happens if they don't? They get kicked the fuck out (and probably you with 'em). So again, you get screwed on account of somebody not taking care of business.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 25, 2010)

I think all illegal immigrants should be deported, along with their kids. They are an insult to those that actually applied and got into the country legally.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 25, 2010)

I'm not in the country, so i won't say much because we simply don't have the scale of problem as you do.

What i will say is that the way that this is going about it disgusts me. It is revolting, and (from an Australians point of view) seems like it goes against every value your country was founded on


----------



## renzoip (Apr 25, 2010)

Demoniac said:


> I'm not in the country, so i won't say much because we simply don't have the scale of problem as you do.
> 
> What i will say is that the way that this is going about it disgusts me. It is revolting, and (from an Australians point of view) seems like it goes against every value your country was founded on




Although undocumented immigration is a huge problem here. I would agree with you that this isn't the way they should go about it. Again, this is yet another episode of let's oversimplify a complex issue and disregard constitutional/human rights if it works on my interest (or the interest of the "American people" even when there is really no consensus on this).


----------



## kmanick (Apr 25, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I better stay out of the sun and keep my beard shaved in fear that this spreads Eastward.


 
why you can't speak english?


----------



## pink freud (Apr 25, 2010)

jpxplayer said:


> This is about our population growing at a fantastic rate we cannot sustain. Keep in mind the legal immigrants are on social programs.
> They like the Unions are draining us monetarily.
> This was once a land of opportunity.. America offers freedom.
> Over the last many years it has offered a Free ride for most immigrants. It has to end. California is broke because of immigrants. The State has more than a 50% immigrant population. The crime rate is highest in the Nation. They have to go home. We simply cannot afford them. They are Anchor's.
> ...



This once was a land of migratory farmers and nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes that would travel north and south as their needs dictated. Then some white people came over and put down arbitrary boundaries and said that those migratory farmers and nomadic hunter-gatherers were "immigrants" because they were coming from the other side of said arbitrary border.

As for voting out all incumbents, that is incredibly naive on two separate levels. A) Such a philosophy dictates that every single person in the government occupying an elected position is inept/corrupt. A person operating under this thought process would have to be under the delusion that 100% of Congress must vote in favor or disfavor of passing a bill, instead of just enough people voting the other way (for legitimate or illegitimate reasons) to stop a bill or cause a bill to succeed. B) This philosophy also requires the delusion that the people who would be voted in wouldn't be equally corrupt/inept. Power corrupts, and generally the type of people who even _want_ to be politicians have already been corrupted to an extent.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 25, 2010)

Way to go Arizona, hopefully Texas will wake up now. And to those so quick to judge; unless you live in a border state, you have no idea what is really happening. I've literally been laughed at when applying for certain jobs because I'm a white male. There is something seriously wrong happening here when a company prefers to hire illegal immigrants over citizens. These aren't under-the-table type of hirings either, businesses know they can hire illegals because they know they won't be punished. There's an area right by my apartment where illegals go to hang out and wait to be picked up for their various day-jobs. On Friday, there was just shy of 200 standing around (there are places like this all over Houston). They get picked up, or "hired," by reputable construction companies. The worst part? There's a police station across the street. I'm tired of this attitude where we can't hurt anybody's feelings. If someone is breaking the law, the police should be able to do something about it. 

So, in summation;

They did indeed take 'er jobbbbsssssssssssss!


----------



## renzoip (Apr 25, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> Way to go Arizona, hopefully Texas will wake up now. And to those so quick to judge; unless you live in a border state, you have no idea what is really happening. I've literally been laughed at when applying for certain jobs because I'm a white male. There is something seriously wrong happening here when a company prefers to hire illegal immigrants over citizens. These aren't under-the-table type of hirings either, businesses know they can hire illegals because they know they won't be punished. There's an area right by my apartment where illegals go to hang out and wait to be picked up for their various day-jobs. On Friday, there was just shy of 200 standing around (there are places like this all over Houston). They get picked up, or "hired," by reputable construction companies. The worst part? There's a police station across the street. I'm tired of this attitude where we can't hurt anybody's feelings. If someone is breaking the law, the police should be able to do something about it.
> 
> So, in summation;
> 
> They did indeed take 'er jobbbbsssssssssssss!



Well, I can certainly sympathize in respect of companies hiring undocumented migrants for ridiculous wages and terrible working conditions while Americans lose their jobs. Here in Fl and other states, we also have a few trailer park settlements where undocumented immigrants live. Although the police station is near, they will not bother them as long as they stay "within their limits." That is to say, not mix with the general public, stay in their jobs, and not complain. The majority of immigration raids actually happen in factories and other establishments where undocumented migrants can make minimum wage if not more.

Therefore, this looks like a systematic way to keep a sector of the population subordinated. I've talked to police officers and most aren't not looking forward to having all this extra work to do. The ones who do are a few who already have an racist agenda and already try to advance it within their means. So IMO this is more of an oversimplified populist measure than a real address to a complex issue.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 25, 2010)

renzoip said:


> Therefore, this looks like a systematic way to keep a sector of the population subordinated. I've talked to police officers and most aren't not looking forward to having all this extra work to do. The ones who do are a few who already have an racist agenda and already try to advance it within their means. So IMO this is more of an oversimplified populist measure than a real address to a complex issue.



If that sector you speak of is illegal immigrants, then what is wrong with keeping them subordinated? The shouldn't be here, end of story.

I don't think there is any racist agenda behind this. This law addresses a very serious issue. Sure, there will be legal immigrants and natural born Hispanic citizens who are questioned under suspicion, but so what? If you are here legally, then how hard is it to show a piece of paper to the officer? And let's be real here, it's not like the officers are going to pull over ever Hispanic person they see. It is really obvious who is legal and illegal once you've lived here long enough. Sorry if that offends anyone, but it's true.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 25, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> If that sector you speak of is illegal immigrants, then what is wrong with keeping them subordinated? The shouldn't be here, end of story.
> 
> I don't think there is any racist agenda behind this. This law addresses a very serious issue. Sure, there will be legal immigrants and natural born Hispanic citizens who are questioned under suspicion, but so what? If you are here legally, then how hard is it to show a piece of paper to the officer? And let's be real here, it's not like the officers are going to pull over ever Hispanic person they see. It is really obvious who is legal and illegal once you've lived here long enough. Sorry if that offends anyone, but it's true.



What I'm saying is that while they are trying to sell this as a strong hand measure to rid of undocumented immigrants, in reality what has been done is to arrest and deport a sector of the undocumented. The ones who strive for minimum wage or better, while the ones who aren't, are left alone.

On the other hand, this is not just about them. It's about us, our democratic values and our constitutional rights. It seems that many people use this idea of them not being citizens to justify outright abuse. Maybe they shouldn't be here but that does not suddenly legitimize us throwing our values out the window. For all I know, terrorist such as the KKK and Radical Muslim have more protection under the law; people who are on probation for violent crimes receive a far more decent treatment. 

It is ironic that we as a country are quick to point the finger and denounce violation of human rights and democratic values elsewhere and yet, some people here want to use all sorts of arguments to justify the degradation of other human begins. Sad but true.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 25, 2010)

^
I am in no way advocating harassment of minority groups, please don't get that impression. To me, it seems pretty clear; if you aren't a citizen of the US then you do not have the same rights as a citizen. This, by no means, implies you should hate or mis-treat illegal immigrants. Simply send them back to their country, and then give them a chance to immigrate legally.

I'm not so naive as to think that certain individuals won't try to hide behind the new laws to justify their treatment of illegals. I just feel that the only way to address this situation is to take a hard stand. Worrying too much about hurting feelings or political correctness is how we ended up where we are now.

The truth of the matter is that the Federal government will never pass any definitive legislation to sort this out, so I think it's a good thing if State governments take it upon themselves to deal with the problem. 

I can already tell the Federal government will try to stop this, but I really think that this should be protected by the 10th amendment. Illegal immigration is clearly an issue that effects only certain states (at least enough to make a significant economic impact, by that I mean the gains in tax money and jobs would outweigh the cost of enforcing the laws), and I think it should be left to the individual states to make and enforce their own legislation.


----------



## kmanick (Apr 25, 2010)

^^^ Excellent post!


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 25, 2010)

^ 
Thank you. I'll take a quote from a news program I was watching this morning (don't remember which, but not Fox News ); "this issue is about protecting a state and nation's sovereignty." I really like that idea. Say you own a piece of private property, of which you have supreme authority (I know in reality you don't have sovereignty of your private property, just assume for argument's sake), where your family and you live. Somebody moves on to your property without your consent. They then start breaking every rule your family has agreed to follow. What do you do? You can't force someone to obey rules they have never agreed to. Your only choices are to convince them to agree to your rules (naturalize), or remove them from your land (evict). It should be your right as the land owner to make that choice.

I cannot understand the idea that illegal immigrants are our guests in this country and should get special consideration. The last time I checked, guests were invited (sorry, had a "FOX news" moment there ).


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 25, 2010)

WTF is so hard to understand here? I was born in the USA and have to abide by their laws. If I go to, say, Iraq or wtfever on business, pleasure, etc., I have to abide by THEIR laws [not to mention, if I went to Mexico, I'd be treated like shit], which means I don't get to just run amuk and break laws. If I break THEIR LAWS, unknowingly or otherwise, I get thrown in THEIR JAIL, not pandered to like a beaten puppy with gunk in it's eye looking for sympathy. Also, if I illegally immigrated to other nations of the world, I'd probably get put into mandatory labor or prison. Just because we were founded on immigration doesn't mean that anyone having a bad day with their 'parents' [gov't] can just hopscotch there happy ass over here. Not to mention that an open border is *kind of* a security risk.

Soooo, you can go on with this "not hurting pplz feelerz, won't u b mai neighbor" Mr. Rogers crap, or you can live in the reality we live in. And that reality I'm speaking of is that breaking the law=breaking the law no matter who you are.

I know laws are a bit tricky, but I think we can manage to at least grasp the concept. /rant


----------



## Cancer (Apr 25, 2010)

Demoniac said:


> I'm not in the country, so i won't say much because we simply don't have the scale of problem as you do.
> 
> What i will say is that the way that this is going about it disgusts me. It is revolting, and (from an Australians point of view) seems like it goes against every value your country was founded on




^^^^^^....This.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 25, 2010)

^
I don't see what is disgusting about it. I suppose we should just let anyone come live here, not apply for citizenship, not pay taxes for money earned in the US, and then send that money back to their family in their home country (instead of being re-invested into the US' economic system)? Maybe we could provide them with free healthcare while we're at it?


----------



## Syrinx (Apr 25, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> And let's be real here, it's not like the officers are going to pull over ever Hispanic person they see. It is really obvious who is legal and illegal once you've lived here long enough. Sorry if that offends anyone, but it's true.


You obviously don't know much about our sheriff here.



> At issue are a series of sweeps, often conducted in Hispanic neighborhoods, in which sheriff's deputies and volunteers pulled over cars and stopped people on the street in a search for illegal immigrants and criminals. Critics allege the sweeps targeted individuals based on their physical appearance, such as dark skin or ethnicity.



Ariz. Sheriff Accused Of Racial Profiling - washingtonpost.com



> PHOENIX  A federal judge will decide whether to impose sanctions against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for its acknowledged destruction of police records in a lawsuit that accuses deputies of racially profiling countless Hispanics in immigration sweeps.



Joe Arpaio's Sheriff's Office Faces Possible Sanctions For Destroying Racial Profiling Records


----------



## renzoip (Apr 25, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> ^
> I don't see what is disgusting about it. I suppose we should just let anyone come live here, not apply for citizenship, not pay taxes for money earned in the US, and then send that money back to their family in their home country (instead of being re-invested into the US' economic system)? Maybe we could provide them with fee healthcare while we're at it?




Well, I would also disagree with that. And thank you for your other post clarifying your position. See, IMO the government is not the answer. I think the state can only handle so many people. However, the private industry offers great alternatives for what the government cannot and should not do. I am all for closing the border, restricting government aid to undocumented immigrants so long as the government can punish them (and those who hire them) accordingly and then give them a temporary permit that will allow them to work/drive/study. That way, they low skilled could get decent paying jobs and stop devaluing labor, pay taxes, learn English and acquire better skills. On the other hand, the skilled could revalidate their professional degrees easier and start investing in businesses. I believe private industry can provide the supply for the extra demand. After all, I don't think George W. Bush, Lindsey Graham and John McCain supported immigration reform with the idea of giving people government freebies.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 25, 2010)

Okay, so now people (in AZ ONLY, and ONLY after this August) must no carry proper documentation, or can face detention, or even.....gasp....a FINE. Though, if you're an illegal immigrant YOU DESERVE TO BE DETAINED AND DEPORTED AS YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. It's simply how it works. If you don't want to live in fear of deportation than get off your lazy ass and follow proper procedure to get in this country legally, and to stay legal. 

You know, I already have to have my Driver's License when I get behind the wheel of a car. I also need to carry proof of Insurance and a copy of my car's Registration. When I'm at school I need to have my I.D. handy. In all these cases "forgetting my wallet" still carries consequences. 

Will there be a little profiling? Of course, there already is. I've yet to see a better method of finding the "person" you're looking for then to look for someone who fits the general description. I'm not just talking about in the US either. 

To all those bashing this new law, what would YOU rather do to fix the problem of illegal immigration? 

Instead of just saying blanket statements like "it goes against what this country was founded on" and it's "encroaching on people's rights" come up with a better option.



renzoip said:


> Well, I would also disagree with that. And thank you for your other post clarifying your position. See, IMO the government is not the answer. I think the state can only handle so many people. However, the private industry offers great alternatives for what the government cannot and should not do. I am all for restricting government aid to undocumented immigrants so long as the government can punish them (and those who hire them) accordingly and then *give them a temporary permit that will allow them to work/drive/study*. That way, they low skilled could get decent paying jobs and stop devaluing labor, pay taxes and acquire better skills. On the other hand, the skilled could revalidate their professional degrees easier and start investing in businesses. I believe private industry can provide the supply for the extra demand. After all, I don't think George W. Bush, Lindsey Graham and John McCain supported immigration reform with the idea of giving people government freebies.



How about we wipe their asses while we're at it? 

So what you're saying, is that we should give them a complete freebie for coming here illegally?

We kind of already have those, they're called student Visas, and you don't have to break the law to get one. You can also get various other forms of Visas.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 25, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Okay, so now people (in AZ ONLY, and ONLY after this August) must no carry proper documentation, or can face detention, or even.....gasp....a FINE. Though, if you're an illegal immigrant YOU DESERVE TO BE DETAINED AND DEPORTED AS YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. It's simply how it works. If you don't want to live in fear of deportation than get off your lazy ass and follow proper procedure to get in this country legally, and to stay legal.
> 
> You know, I already have to have my Driver's License when I get behind the wheel of a car. I also need to carry proof of Insurance and a copy of my car's Registration. When I'm at school I need to have my I.D. handy. In all these cases "forgetting my wallet" still carries consequences.
> 
> ...




How would a work permit be a freebie? It's not like the government would provide them a job, or a car, or financial aid for school. All of that can be taken care of through private means at no cost to the tax payer. For instance, Cubans exiles need no visas to come and if they make it here, they get a temporary protection status that allows them to do all of these things. That's mainly why they are able to access capital and prosper without no government to depend on. This idea isn't something someone just randomly came up with. It's something that is already being done and it works. And if they violated the law, then they should be reasonably punished (fined). Government does not need to give anything. It's just needs to get out of the way.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 25, 2010)

That's saying that the worst thing that's going to happen if you enter this country illegally is a fine (which doesn't mean anything if you're already broke living off of the social program teet). How would that work to curb the numbers of illegal immigrants?

If anything that would cause more to enter the country illegally.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Apr 26, 2010)

Cliff's Notes at the end of the post.


DISCLAIMER:This is a LOOOOONNNNGGGG post. I didn't read this thread. But, I'll post this because it has something to do with people bitching about immigration laws.

Why should America allow EVERYBODY in? Mexico doesn't. 
Here's a few Mexican immigration laws (I'll post the actual law in this post also).
1. If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native language

2. You have to be a professional or an investor. No unskilled workers
allowed.

3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no
special ballots for elections, all government business will be
conducted
in our language.

4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they
are here.

5 Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no
food
stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount
equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT
options will be restricted. You are not allowed waterfront property.
That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign
flag, no political organizing, no badmouthing our president or his
policies, if you do you will be sent home.

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down
and sent straight to jail.


Now, here are the ACTUAL laws in Mexico regarding immigration.

Mexican Constitution

4-5, 9: Article 33: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." (See also Article 35 listing the prerogatives of Mexican citizens.)

5: Article 32: "In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of pratique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

5: Article 55: "The following are the requirements to be a deputy:
I. To be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his rights;"

Article 59 extends makes the requirements to be a Senator the same as a deputy, except for age. Article 82 require the President to be " Mexican citizen by birth, in the full enjoyment of his rights, and the son of Mexican parents by birth". Article 91 states that to be a secretary, you have to be a Mexican citizen by birth, too. Article 95 extends the requirement of Mexican citizenship by birth to ministers of the Supreme Court of Justice. Article 115 requires governors to be Mexican citizens by birth. Article 130 limits ministers of any religion in Mexico to Mexican citizens by birth.

8: Article 27: "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country."

-------------------------------

Mexico's immigration laws are MUCH stricter than America's. Why do people bitch when we are just trying to treat them the same way they treat us? (answer that if you want, I don't really care).


----------



## renzoip (Apr 26, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's saying that the worst thing that's going to happen if you enter this country illegally is a fine (which doesn't mean anything if you're already broke living off of the social program teet). How would that work to curb the numbers of illegal immigrants?
> 
> If anything that would cause more to enter the country illegally.



well, that alone would certainly not stop the influx of immigrants. it would have to be complemented with closing off the border and more patroling, which is something already being worked on.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 26, 2010)

renzoip said:


> well, that alone would certainly not stop the influx of immigrants. it would have to be complemented with closing off the border and more patroling, which is something already being worked on.



I think the government is already trying to keep new illegals from coming in the country. This bill is more about how to get the ones who are already here out of the country; something which I don't think was being seriously addressed before.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 26, 2010)

renzoip said:


> well, that alone would certainly not stop the influx of immigrants. it would have to be complemented with closing off the border and more patroling, which is something already being worked on.



So throwing money at the problem? 

That's a great idea, too bad we're broke. 

Not to mention if we closed the border, we would be closing the border to people with real work ethic, and education who wish to live legally in this country. Not to mention those who have the ability to get genuine work and student visas. 

It's been shown that no matter how big the wall, and how many armed personnel we have watching it, people will still find a way in.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 26, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's been shown that no matter how big the wall, and how many armed personnel we have watching it, people will still find a way in.





I think one of the most important aspects of this bill is that it takes away much of the appeal of coming to America illegally. It's nearly impossible just to stop people from crossing illegally; you have to make them not want to cross.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 26, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> I think one of the most important aspects of this bill is that it takes away much of the appeal of coming to America illegally. It's nearly impossible just to stop people from crossing illegally; you have to make them not want to cross.



That right there is what it's all about. 

If they had an applause smilie it would be all up in this post.


----------



## Dirtdog (Apr 26, 2010)

I live i New Mexico where soon I'll have to get a passport to fly on any airlines because of the real ID and because my state gives drivers licenses to illegal imigrants. Why the hell should I have to pay more money for something that I should't need just so some illegal imigrant from south of the border can drive his low rider. I think Arizona was right in every way to do what they did, and my state bitched because they said it was cause alot more to come through here. It takes an over the top approach before the goverment will step in and they are going to look at this real close. You want health care to be cheap. Get rid of the Illegals plain and simple. they are a drain on an over strained system as it is.Is their any way for us to bomb the shit out of rio grande and turn it into another grand canyon? I can only hope. And as far as Im concerned only american citizens, and legal imigrants have constitutional rights. Human rights vilations are left up to the New World Order called the UN


----------



## renzoip (Apr 26, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> So throwing money at the problem?
> 
> That's a great idea, too bad we're broke.
> 
> ...



Well, the idea of fortifying the border has always been considered regardless of what is done with the undocumented who are already here. Therefore, money will still need to be invested regardless to keep as much people from coming illegally.

Speaking of money, while I understand the negative economic impact undocumented immigrants can have, I find interesting (to say the least) how many seem to think that just getting rid of them and their children will fix our economy, our health care costs and all social problems one could think of. To think that in a country of 309,140,000 people, a sector of 11 million people can make our brake the economy, social stability, and health care system is kinda...  IMO.

The problems our country may be facing are complex. Plain and simple solutions don't really work in the long run. They are a result of scapegoating. Then, comes the ideology to legitimize action. Unfortunately, it is easier to persecute the weak and take simple strong hand measures against them because it gets people hyped up and polarized. It's not the first time harsh measures are taken against a group for the sake of cleaning up a country. But, that has not turn out too well.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 26, 2010)

renzoip said:


> Well, the idea of fortifying the border has always been considered regardless of what is done with the undocumented who are already here. Therefore, money will still need to be invested regardless to keep as much people from coming illegally.
> 
> Speaking of money, while I understand the negative economic impact undocumented immigrants can have, I find interesting (to say the least) how many seem to think that just getting rid of them and their children will fix our economy, our health care costs and all social problems one could think of. To think that in a country of 309,140,000 people, a sector of 11 million people can make our brake the economy, social stability, and health care system is kinda...  IMO.
> 
> The problems our country may be facing are complex. Plain and simple solutions don't really work in the long run. They are a result of scapegoating. Then, comes the ideology to legitimize action. Unfortunately, it is easier to persecute the weak and take simple strong hand measures against them because it gets people hyped up and polarized. It's not the first time harsh measures are taken against a group for the sake of cleaning up a country. But, that has not turn out too well.



Though, if the prospect of living here does not look appetizing, then there won't be nearly as many trying to come into this country, so we wouldn't have to spend billions to fortify the border. 

As for the economic impact, while some parts can be debated can you really say that the anywhere from 8 to 20 million illegal immigrants are not having a significant effect on our economy? That's roughly 7% percent of the population at most. Believe it or not that can have a HUGE impact. Especially when that 7% is not very widely dispersed, such is the case.

I implore you to come here to AZ. Look around a bit, try to find a job. Then tell me how little the estimated well over 500,000 illegal immigrants here matter. Tell me how much they aren't straining the local economy. You seem to know more than we, the people who live in this state and the ones to our immediate East and West do. 

I'm not saying if we give them all the boot everything will immediately improve, but you can't say having them here is helping us in any way. Also, I'm still waiting on your better plan. 

EDIT: Just thought I'd put some numbers out there.

Annually, illegal immigrants cost taxpayers an estimated $36,000,000,000. In Arizona alone they cost us taxpayers $1,000,000,000 annually. These numbers came from studies in 04' and 05', according to the same numbers, these figures could have increased as much as 70% by this year.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 26, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Though, if the prospect of living here does not look appetizing, then there won't be nearly as many trying to come into this country, so we wouldn't have to spend billions to fortify the border.
> 
> As for the economic impact, while some parts can be debated can you really say that the anywhere from 8 to 20 million illegal immigrants are not having a significant effect on our economy? That's roughly 7% percent of the population at most. Believe it or not that can have a HUGE impact. Especially when that 7% is not very widely dispersed, such is the case.
> 
> ...




Well, it is argued that the border also need to be fortified for reasons other than illegal crossing of people. There are too many other things that come in and out (such as drugs, criminals and firearms) without enough control.

Now, I do not mean to underestimate the situation in AZ or the neighboring states. I think the concentration of undocumented there isn't healthy. But again, a reform should come with strict conditions and I'm all for conditioning their location and access to social programs (although if all these people actually had temporary protection statuses, it would not be as bad as it is now). 

As far as coming up with a plan, I think I have exposed my alternative ideas through out the thread. I don't claim to be an expert on the topic; besides policy isn't an easy thing to formulate. Coming up with a comprehensive plan, and wording it correctly would probably take me a couple of weeks (you wouldn't expect politicians to come up with stuff from the top of their heads). Besides, people don't come up with policy alone. That's what I've been criticizing, the fact that people oversimplify this kind of stuff and think they can come up with easy radical solutions.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 26, 2010)

I guess I just don't understand how fortifying and closing our border would be better, than "simply" imposing laws to make people not want to live hear illegally. 

I understand that this is not a simple issue, and I wasn't expecting you to come up with something, in fact I'm glad you didn't. I was just hoping you would look at the issue a little differently then simply a civil rights issue. I know I have after doing a lot of reading in the past few days.

In the end, neither of us here are in control of this, so all we can do is sit back and see how it works.


----------



## Syrinx (Apr 26, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess I just don't understand how fortifying and closing our border would be better, *than "simply" imposing laws to make people not want to live hear illegally. *



As already mentioned, the bolded part would have no effect on drugs and weapons crossing the border.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 26, 2010)

Syrinx said:


> As already mentioned, the bolded part would have no effect on drugs and weapons crossing the border.



Look at it this way. If the border patrol have less illegal immigrants to worry about (which seems to be the bulk of who they deal with, opposed to drug runners and weapons smugglers), then they would have more man power to put towards stopping other illegal activities. 

Let's say BP has 1000 officers to work with. Of those 1000 officers, 600 of them are busy stopping regular illegal (or should I say potentially illegal) immigrants from crossing the border. One who aren't trafficking drugs, or weapons. That leaves on 400 guys to watch out for the drugs and weapons. Though, let's say the new law brings down the level of illegal immigration down to only needing 300 officers to handle the "regular" illegals. This means that now 700 officers can focus on the drugs and other contraband. That's nearly a double in the amount of forces, with the potential for double the busts, without any extra cost. 

Of course all the numbers there were made up, but the theory still stands.

There's NOTHING short of a fifty foot tall, ten foot thick, 20 foot planted, solid steel wall that's electrified with 24 hour armed guard houses stationed every fifty feet that will stop ANYTHING or ANYONE from getting into this country. It's been proven time and again, if there's a will there's a way. The best we can do is stop as many as we can, as far as brute force goes. Though, if we can minimize the amount who want to come in, the effectiveness of the measures in place significantly improves.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Apr 27, 2010)

The main problem I have with this is not that it penalizes illegal immigrants, but that it makes it very possible for citizens whose rights _should_ be protected to be able to be subjected to search at any time.

It's up to the Supreme Court if this constitutes opening citizens to "Unlawful Search and Seizure" as outlined in the Bill of Rights, but you do have to admit that there are quite a number of less then stellar characters who would love to use this as an excuse to intimidate and harass those of Latino descent, or simply people with darker skin.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 27, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> The main problem I have with this is not that it penalizes illegal immigrants, but that it makes it very possible for citizens whose rights _should_ be protected to be able to be subjected to search at any time.
> 
> It's up to the Supreme Court if this constitutes opening citizens to "Unlawful Search and Seizure" as outlined in the Bill of Rights, but you do have to admit that there are quite a number of less then stellar characters who would love to use this as an excuse to intimidate and harass those of Latino descent, or simply people with darker skin.



You're 100% right, I can see a lot of the negative aspects of this new law. 

If anything I'm sure it will force the federal government to stop ignoring the issue at hand. Hopefully.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 28, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> The main problem I have with this is not that it penalizes illegal immigrants, but that it makes it very possible for citizens whose rights _should_ be protected to be able to be subjected to search at any time.
> 
> It's up to the Supreme Court if this constitutes opening citizens to "Unlawful Search and Seizure" as outlined in the Bill of Rights, but you do have to admit that there are quite a number of less then stellar characters who would love to use this as an excuse to intimidate and harass those of Latino descent, or simply people with darker skin.



I bet we'll hear of a few instances of Republicans hiring rent-a-cops to hang around voting locations and harass Latinos standing in line to vote this November.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 28, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> I bet we'll hear of a few instances of Republicans hiring rent-a-cops to hang around voting locations and harass Latinos standing in line to vote this November.



I doubt it. Republicans have been trying for a while to court Latino voters and swing them to their side. The last thing they want, on top of this new law, is looking like they're going out of their way to (further) alienate Latino voters.


----------



## Randy (Apr 28, 2010)

orb451 said:


> I doubt it. Republicans have been trying for a while to court Latino voters and swing them to their side. The last thing they want, on top of this new law, is looking like they're going out of their way to (further) alienate Latino voters.



Very good point. I forgot about that, but it was very true in the last few presidential elections.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 28, 2010)

Yeah I think they learned quickly Randy, after the last election anyway, that the Latinos couldn't be muscled into line as much as maybe they would have liked. Realizing they won't go away, and they represent a huge number of possible votes, they want to capitalize on that and bring them into the fold.

Here's a few links for those interested in more analysis of the bill:

Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit: Consider the Source

and

Hysterics against Arizona - Rich Lowry - National Review Online

All this Arizona law is doing is enforcing the EXISTING Federal Law. As far as profiling goes, they even set aside time and training for officers to explicitly avoid trying to "guesstimate" on an individuals immigration status just by looking at them.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 28, 2010)

orb451 said:


> I doubt it. Republicans have been trying for a while to court Latino voters and swing them to their side. The last thing they want, on top of this new law, is looking like they're going out of their way to (further) alienate Latino voters.



This new law is obviously toxic for Republican votes among Latinos, and I'm sure that occurred to them. Arizona Republicans are pretty much resigned to that reality at this point. And I'm sure they thought of a few ideas to minimize it's impact, one of which this legislation is conducive to is also a tried and true Republican tactic- voter suppression.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 28, 2010)

orb451 said:


> All this Arizona law is doing is enforcing the EXISTING Federal Law. As far as profiling goes, they even set aside time and training for officers to explicitly avoid trying to "guesstimate" on an individuals immigration status just by looking at them.



I hope whatever training they get is effective, because law enforcement won't get any cooperation from illegals anymore. It's going to be a lot more difficult- and dangerous- for them to do their jobs.

The rational solution to this is a law which imposes significant penalties on employers that hire illegals and pay them under the table.


----------



## ddtonfire (Apr 28, 2010)

A little digression:
Opponents of Immigration Law Call for Boycott of Arizona Iced Tea
Arizona Tea is brewed in NY.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 28, 2010)

ddtonfire said:


> A little digression:
> Opponents of Immigration Law Call for Boycott of Arizona Iced Tea
> Arizona Tea is brewed in NY.



Fucking idiots.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 28, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> I hope whatever training they get is effective, because law enforcement won't get any cooperation from illegals anymore. It's going to be a lot more difficult- and dangerous- for them to do their jobs.
> 
> The rational solution to this is a law which imposes significant penalties on employers that hire illegals and pay them under the table.



Were they getting a lot of cooperation from illegals before this law? I think not. As I said, this is JUST a law that mirrors EXISTING Federal Law. You guys understand that right? It's already been a law on the books that if you're here as an immigrant with a visa, green-card, etc or are waiting for your paperwork to clear, that you carry copies of them with you on your person at all times. It's also on the books that law enforcement will accept (from citizens) things like a driver's license, state or federal-issued ID card or tribal membership card to establish citizenship upon, lets say, a traffic stop for example.

So the myth of them going door to door gestapo style asking for papers is just that. A myth. It's not going to happen. Not in Arizona, not anywhere. The myth of them pulling over us po' brown folks in Arizona and say, because you or I or whomever happens to have a funky accent are subsequently thrown in jail or subjected to some kind of extraordinary rendition is also patently false. As the law states, they are willing and able to accept the above mentioned ID's as proof of citizenship. 

Here's an excerpt from Arizona State Law:

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 2, 11-1051 (B) ... A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. A VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.


Again, there's just sooooo much spin on this issue and so much FUD bullshit going around you're going to need wings to stay above it all. Get the facts folks, just the facts.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 28, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Were they getting a lot of cooperation from illegals before this law? I think not.



Yes they were. I just saw an interview with a Police Chief in AZ on Chris Matthews last night, and he said the vast majority of illegals he pulls over work with him and are honest about their illegal status, and of course won't be now with this new law.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 28, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Again, there's just sooooo much spin on this issue and so much FUD bullshit going around you're going to need wings to stay above it all. Get the facts folks, just the facts.



You didn't have the fact about what it's like now for law enforcement officers that deal with illegals, and how that will soon be much different. You're right about the gestapo myth, but you're either willingly ignoring or are just ignorant of some significant consequences of this law.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 28, 2010)

I don't understand why they wouldn't institute laws that punish people that employ illegals, thus giving them less incentive to even want to jump the border.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 28, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> Yes they were. I just saw an interview with a Police Chief in AZ on Chris Matthews last night, and he said the vast majority of illegals he pulls over work with him and are honest about their illegal status, and of course won't be now with this new law.



Maybe the reason they're willfully cooperating with police officers whilst breaking the law is the fact that the law has not been enforced, or enforced strictly. Maybe the reason Arizona and California (where I live) are near insolvency is partly due to such a large influx of illegal immigrants living off the services our legal residents pay for.

Maybe you think that that's OK. Personally I do not. And I'm an immigrant and I'm Latino. If this law makes being an illegal immigrant in Arizona hard or miserable I'm all for it. I only hope that more border states (and others) start enforcing the laws on this issue. And yes we need crackdowns on employers that exploit these workers. And yes we need a clear and concise path to legal citizenship, but again, my thoughts on the issue are that if you're going to come to this country you damned well better:

1. work
2. speak, read and write English
3. not send a great portion of your income right back across the border


----------



## orb451 (Apr 28, 2010)

Stealthtastic said:


> I don't understand why they wouldn't institute laws that punish people that employ illegals, thus giving them less incentive to even want to jump the border.



Because companies that employ and exploit the work of illegal immigrants can lobby their local representatives to keep the laws loosely (if ever) enforced.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Apr 28, 2010)

Seriously. If you want to stop illegal immigration, heavily penalize those who hire them.

Bang, job done! A lot of the incentive to cross over is gone, making it easier to deal with the remainder. Except there are enough corporate whores on both sides of the aisle to block any legislation to this effect.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 28, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Maybe the reason they're willfully cooperating with police officers whilst breaking the law is the fact that the law has not been enforced, or enforced strictly.



Of course it is, the reason is obvious. Now you have thousands of illegals that will be unpredictable, in a 'fight or flight' mode when dealing with law enforcement.



orb451 said:


> Maybe the reason Arizona and California (where I live) are near insolvency is partly due to such a large influx of illegal immigrants living off the services our legal residents pay for.
> 
> Maybe you think that that's OK. Personally I do not. And I'm an immigrant and I'm Latino. If this law makes being an illegal immigrant in Arizona hard or miserable I'm all for it.



I don't want any decent people to live miserable, diffucult lives, regardless of their citizenship. I think America should be capable of doing things ethically and intelligently. This law isn't one of those cases.



orb451 said:


> And yes we need crackdowns on employers that exploit these workers. And yes we need a clear and concise path to legal citizenship, but again, my thoughts on the issue are that if you're going to come to this country you damned well better:
> 
> 1. work
> 2. speak, read and write English
> 3. not send a great portion of your income right back across the border



The only rational, ethical way to begin immigration reform is to create laws that will discover and punish unethical employers- not the decent people who come to this country trying to better themselves and live their lives without fear.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 28, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> Of course it is, the reason is obvious. Now you have thousands of illegals that will be unpredictable, in a 'fight or flight' mode when dealing with law enforcement.



I think you're confusing illegal immigrants with criminals and that's easy to do. Criminals in a "flight or fight mode" are the ones that they need to worry about. And rightfully, always had to worry about. That goes with the territory when you're a police officer. Just because the pulled people over and those people freely admitted to breaking a law, only to find no repercussions does not in any way justify their behavior or the fact that a crime is actually being committed. If anything, it's egg on the face of our police officers who willfully ignored federal law and let them get away with it. Maybe it was too much paperwork, I can't speculate on the reason for letting them get away with it. You're saying that because they are now enforcing this law that somehow officers are going to be put in grave danger on a regular basis? If so, my point is that they already put themselves in danger every time they go to work. That's part of the job. 



Krullnar said:


> I don't want any decent people to live miserable, diffucult lives, regardless of their citizenship. I think America should be capable of doing things ethically and intelligently. This law isn't one of those cases.



This law is not new. Again, all it is doing is enforcing existing federal law. That law applies everywhere. Get it? You live in Ohio right? Come live in a border state for a while and see how it is. It's really easy to view the world through rose-tinted glasses when you're far removed from what's really going on. That's not a dig either. I do it too, it happens. But just try to understand that for every hardworking immigrant coming into this country there are tens or hundreds more that are all too happy to sit on their asses and leech off of our system. 



Krullnar said:


> The only rational, ethical way to begin immigration reform is to create laws that will discover and punish unethical employers- not the decent people who come to this country trying to better themselves and live their lives without fear.



I don't think that's the only way to deal with this situation. It's ONE way to deal with it, enforcing this law is yet another. Immigration reform, like a lot of other big name issues these days is not about "one" magic solution. Big topics like these require a multi-faceted solution. Here's a post from an AZ resident and his experiences from another forum:

_"I've lost one vehicle to theft; found weeks later with an illegal alien (from Mexico) behind the wheel. All removable components removed. It was paid off prior and insurance did not cover full price to get a new one though they did pay a lot. But they probably raised everyone who pays insurance a little to cover it so no worries to the illegal immigrants.

I've been hit twice in hit and runs; luckily I was able to follow them and get police to their location. First time, the police gave them a ticket, told me they were not legal (from Mexico) and to just deal with my insurance. When I asked why they weren't being detained to deport it was due to the city of Phoenix police not being allowed to enforce immigration (this was around '02). Second time, they were detained by the sheriff dept which is all I know, and again it was my insurance that had to pay the tab (see the trend here) each time with me paying deductibles and 100% of aftermarket equip.

My son was in an accident and his foot was sliced open to the bone. I carried him in to the ER that evening and it was packed wall to wall, no room to stand. We checked in at the desk and then we were asked to step outside and wait because it was safer outside. You see the ER was packed with illegal immigrants who did not have insurance and were using it as a clinic to treat the flu, common colds, strep throat... stuff you take to a regular Dr. So the facilities tax payers have contributed to so its there in the event of an emergency is over-run. A nurse came outside after a half hour and walked us around to a side door where they finally treated my sons foot.

For states that are not on the border, immigration may not seem like it's a bad problem but for states that are on the border its a huge problem. It's expensive and though activists will tell you otherwise it's a big impact on crime.

A few points you should understand since you want to be a citizen of the US.
- Illegal immigrants do not have a right to be here. That's why they call it 'illegal'.
- It's not the burden of the US for an immigrant to gain citizenship; it's the immigrants burden!
- This country is losing money fast and illegal immigration costs more each year than the war effort overseas.
- Many of us already citizens have fought for and killed for this country, possibly close to you right now; it is NOT a good idea to tell us to get fucked."_


And it was in response to someone else that saying it cost too much to become a citizen.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> Seriously. If you want to stop illegal immigration, heavily penalize those who hire them.
> 
> Bang, job done! A lot of the incentive to cross over is gone, making it easier to deal with the remainder. Except there are enough corporate whores on both sides of the aisle to block any legislation to this effect.



And how do you expect the employers to get caught? 

There would have to be some way to verify that the employees are citizens or illegal immigrants. But how on earth would you do that? What sort of organization is already in place in cities across the country who's job it is to enforce the law?


----------



## orb451 (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> And how to you expect the employers to get caught?
> 
> There would have to be some way to verify that the employees are citizens or illegal immigrants. But how on earth would you do that? What sort of organization is already in place in cities across the country who's job it is to enforce the law?


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> Of course it is, the reason is obvious. Now you have thousands of illegals that will be unpredictable, in a 'fight or flight' mode when dealing with law enforcement.



_And the last time I checked, the police are trained to handle such a situation. Why would you be okay with having a rational person living here illegally, let alone a violent/unpredictable one?_



Krullnar said:


> I don't want any decent people to live miserable, diffucult lives, regardless of their citizenship. I think America should be capable of doing things ethically and intelligently. This law isn't one of those cases.



_I don't want them to live a miserable life either. They are more than welcome to apply for citizenship legally, or go back to their country of origin. 

Should we politely ask them to go back, provided it doesn't offend them too much? Sometime the most intelligent way to deal with a problem is by dealing with it directly. I don't see an ethical problem with removing people from your country who are breaking the law. _



Krullnar said:


> The only rational, ethical way to begin immigration reform is to create laws that will discover and punish unethical employers- not the decent people who come to this country trying to better themselves and live their lives without fear.



_You do realize it is already illegal, and punishable by law, to employ illegal immigrants? It's obviously not working too well.

I don't want people to enter and live in my country illegally, regardless of their motives. If they want to better themselves and live without fear, then they should enter this country through legal means._





I see this type of legislation as a practical means to solve a problem that desperately needs to be addressed.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> And how do you expect the employers to get caught?
> 
> There would have to be some way to verify that the employees are citizens or illegal immigrants. But how on earth would you do that? What sort of organization is already in place in cities across the country who's job it is to enforce the law?



Again, I am not objecting to the intent of the law. I am objecting to the fact that someone like my cousins (who are darker-haired and darker-skinned thanks to their Mediterranean and Israeli heritage) can be pulled over in Arizona and asked to present papers. It is very "police state" and hardly what I envision to be "American."

I present a quote from someone on another board, in response to a news story in which an American truck driver was pulled over:


The Dark Wolf said:


> I'm pretty damn libertarian, and I cannot for the LIFE of me see how anyone can justify this kind of gross abuse of the guaranteed rights of an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Read that again - AMERICAN CITIZEN. A man who broke no laws, did nothing wrong. His crime was being born with brown skin. That's it, and he was singled out for that fact. That's racist as hell.
> 
> The Founders believed it was better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be wrongfully deprived of liberty. That's why there are so many protections of individual rights. That anyone can even justify this kind of blatant abuse flies in the face of everything the Constitution stands for.



This is fundamentally my problem with this legislation.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> _You do realize it is already illegal, and punishable by law, to employ illegal immigrants? It's obviously not working too well.
> _


_

thats cause no one's enforcing it. Look to those same people passing this new law for that one._


----------



## pink freud (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> And how do you expect the employers to get caught?
> 
> There would have to be some way to verify that the employees are citizens or illegal immigrants. But how on earth would you do that?



I don't know about you, but when I got hired I had to provide my SS number. Because of the nature of my job, I had to prove citizenship, but the SS number being ran (which I believe is standard for all over-the-table jobs these days) would be sufficient, wouldn't it?

This assumes that the company _cares_ about hiring legal people, of course. But even if they didn't, I know here every hired person gets ran to check to see if they have to have their checks garnished. I would like to think that that process would verify if the subject is a citizen or not.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

@Temijin

I understand your point. There will inevitably be incidents like that. The fundamental question is; do you really want to take care of the illegal immigration problem? This is really the only way to effectively do that.

But is the minor inconvenience of being stopped by the police and asked for identification worth it? To me, it very clearly is. Think of how many time you are already required to show some form of identification. But I am a white male, so what is a "minor inconvenience" to me may be a very big issue for legal citizens with Hispanic genes.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 28, 2010)

pink freud said:


> I don't know about you, but when I got hired I had to provide my SS number. Because of the nature of my job, I had to prove citizenship, but the SS number being ran (which I believe is standard for all over-the-table jobs these days) would be sufficient, wouldn't it?
> 
> This assumes that the company _cares_ about hiring legal people, of course. But even if they didn't, I know here every hired person gets ran to check to see if they have to have their checks garnished. I would like to think that that process would verify if the subject is a citizen or not.



That's the thing, the companies who hire illegals out here don't give a shit about running SS numbers, or even about the immigration status of their current and future employees.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

Metal Ken said:


> thats cause no one's enforcing it. Look to those same people passing this new law for that one.



I'm not sure if you are trying to agree or disagree. But to me, that's exactly what this legislation will allow the police to do. Enforce a law that already exists.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

pink freud said:


> I don't know about you, but when I got hired I had to provide my SS number. Because of the nature of my job, I had to prove citizenship, but the SS number being ran (which I believe is standard for all over-the-table jobs these days) *would be sufficient, wouldn't it*?



Not by a long shot.

I've been trying to avoid pulling the whole, "you ain't from around here" card, but really, that's not how things work around here.

Most of the problem is with construction. There are legitimate companies with licensed contractors who will got round up a group of illegals to work a certain job and then pay them in cash. Go to any Home Depot around Houston in the morning and you'll see what I mean.

Not to be insulting to anyone, but I honestly think if you don't live in one of these areas you don't have a firm understanding of the problem. There is a reason that most of the members taking issue with the bill are from the northern part of the country, and the ones who agree with it are from the border states.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> Not by a long shot.
> 
> I've been trying to avoid pulling the whole, "you ain't from around here" card, but really, that's not how things work around here.
> 
> ...




this right here. I'm actually leaning in favor of the bill, given that it isn't really the form of hate-mongering that it's being hyped up to be. All they're doing is asking for proof of your right to be here. And the sorry truth is that because we are having problems with illegal mexican immigrants, a person that looks mexican is more likely to be asked for said documents. Racist? Maybe, it depends upon the person. But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it's highly likely it's a muthafuckin' duck.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> @Temijin
> 
> I understand your point. There will inevitably be incidents like that. The fundamental question is; do you really want to take care of the illegal immigration problem? This is really the only way to effectively do that.
> 
> But is the minor inconvenience of being stopped by the police and asked for identification worth it? To me, it very clearly is. Think of how many time you are already required to show some form of identification. But I am a white male, so what is a "minor inconvenience" to me may be a very big issue for legal citizens with Hispanic genes.



Here I do disagree with you. 

There are other ways to deal with the problem; in fact, I recommended one above. Rather than having police subject citizens to random (and I argue unconstitutional) searches, use that same manpower to enforce the laws preventing the hiring of illegals.

If "everyone knows about it" it shouldn't be hard for a policeman, regulator, or other official to identify and prosecute contractors and other businesses who hire illegals. By doing so, they're dodging taxation, employment, and minimum wage laws, and it shouldn't be hard to make charges stick. Hit one hard enough to make an example out of it (publicize the results as well!) and other employers might start to rethink their strategy. If they keep at it, well, they're just as targetable and legal precedent will decidedly NOT be in their favor.


----------



## pink freud (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> Not by a long shot.
> 
> I've been trying to avoid pulling the whole, "you ain't from around here" card, but really, that's not how things work around here.
> 
> ...



The bill seems to target the illegal immigrants themselves. What you are telling me makes it seem like it would be far better to go after the companies that hire them, thereby drying up the work-pool. 

Deincentivize the prospect of jumping the border, and the problem would eventually stop.

I've been a long time advocate of using our prison population. We have an _enormous_ prison population that can be made to work for far less money that even illegal immigrants are willing to. Put them to work picking veggies and hauling around shingles.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 28, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> Here I do disagree with you.
> 
> There are other ways to deal with the problem; in fact, I recommended one above. Rather than having police subject citizens to random (and I argue unconstitutional) searches, use that same manpower to enforce the laws preventing the hiring of illegals.
> 
> If "everyone knows about it" it shouldn't be hard for a policeman, regulator, or other official to identify and prosecute contractors and other businesses who hire illegals. By doing so, they're dodging taxation, employment, and minimum wage laws, and it shouldn't be hard to make charges stick. Hit one hard enough to make an example out of it (publicize the results as well!) and other employers might start to rethink their strategy. If they keep at it, well, they're just as targetable and legal precedent will decidedly NOT be in their favor.



Though the Police are still going to have to verify if the people working for said contractor are illegal. That could mean some legal Hispanic people the contractor does employ could get questioned. Doesn't that go against what you want? For those who are innocent to be perceived to be guilty? 

Besides, that's really not going to sway these contractors. You really need to see this to believe it. 

They don't get hired like you and me. They simply get to "get in the truck if you want work", do the job, get $100 and then are told to get lost. There's no way to trace it. It's not like the cops can barge into an office and there's illegals everywhere.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 28, 2010)

pink freud said:


> The bill seems to target the illegal immigrants themselves. What you are telling me makes it seem like it would be far better to go after the companies that hire them, thereby drying up the work-pool.
> 
> Deincentivize the prospect of jumping the border, and the problem would eventually stop.
> 
> I've been a long time advocate of using our prison population. We have an _enormous_ prison population that can be made to work for far less money that even illegal immigrants are willing to. Put them to work picking veggies and hauling around shingles.




But you're basing all that man-power on the thought that they actually want to work. Maybe further overhauling some government programs, such as food stamps, general relief and medical benefits would yield better results. Start there as a means of dissuading people from sneaking in here to have 20 kids and use that as an excuse to make a ton of cash in WIC and Food Stamps. A friend of mine has a daughter and just for her girl alone she gets $600/month in food stamps. Imagine when you start to pile up those birth certificates how much you can collect on that. A typical thing [all though illegal here in Ca, it still happens a lot] that people do is sell their food stamps for .50 on the dollar. If you make $1800/month in food stamps, selling them for that price yields you $900/month in cash. That's about as much as you make here in cali doing a minimum wage job or getting SSI benefits. And what kind of effort do you have to do? Practically nothing at all.

So $900/month for you to sit on your ass and do nothing? (maybe once every other week turn in a job search sheet that is so easy to manipulate)
If that isn't a big incentive, then fuck if I know what one is.



And incentive or not, the simple fact is that people want to live here because of the laws that we have (which are far kinder than the rest of the world) and the opportunities available. That's incentive enough for people to crowd in with 20-30 others in the back of a furniture truck and sneak in here in the middle of the night.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

pink freud said:


> The bill seems to target the illegal immigrants themselves. What you are telling me makes it seem like it would be far better to go after the companies that hire them, thereby drying up the work-pool.



Let's assume that lobbyists will allow the police to target the businesses (they won't), but what do you do about the illegal workers themselves? Do you just show up, hand out the fine to the company, and then let the illegals go about their merry way? They'll just find work somewhere else. And more than likely, with the same employer after a week or so.

Punishing the employers and not the employees is the same as "putting a ban-aid on a gunshot wound."


----------



## orb451 (Apr 28, 2010)

Same shit goes on where I live in SoCal. Go to any Home Depot, any day of the week and check out the "Day Labor" waiting areas. They have awnings, benches, food, etc for these folks to sit around at all day long waiting to get "picked". It's exactly as he describes above. Someone shows up and says they need a hand doing whatever work there is, takes a few guys, has them work for the day and then sends them packing.

In fact, if the day laborers (at least in my area) even *see* you walk out with say a big counter top or a load of lumber, they'll come right over and ask you if you need help with anything. Meaning, they'll jump right in with you and help you haul the stuff so long as you kick them a few bucks.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that 90% or higher of the people doing that work are here illegally. Do the cops care? Nope. ICE? Nope. Again, crime-in-progress and no one gives a shit. That kind of apathy needs to stop and I'm glad Arizona finally got the balls to do something about it.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> I'm not sure if you are trying to agree or disagree. But to me, that's exactly what this legislation will allow the police to do. Enforce a law that already exists.



Well, those laws are federal laws, right? That means its up to the federal gov't. to support them. Which they aren't. Dealing with illegal immigration isn't really the job description of the standard on-the-road cop. Therein lies the part of the problem. ICE needs to get its ass in gear.

Alternately, if the state wanted to enforce a similar law, they could easily pass it and use a state law enforcement agency to enforce it. But, rather than do that, the pass a dumb-ass bill that does nothing but take away the rights of ALL of its citizens.



gunshow86de said:


> Punishing the employers and not the employees is the same as "putting a ban-aid on a gunshot wound."


No, its not. Because if People refuse to hire them, there's NO reason to come here. Kicking them out, and allowing companies to hire illegal immigrants does nothing because they'll just jump the fence again. If there's no reason to jump the fence, though...


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Apr 28, 2010)

Immigration (illegal or not) from Mexico isn't just a case of people looking to earn more money. Thanks pretty much exclusively to the War on Drugs, Mexico is rapidly becoming a failed state with truly horrific levels of violence - on a level with modern-day Iraq or Afghanistan.

Until some kind of stability returns to the region, vast and increasing numbers of people will keep trying to enter the US. Wanting to not get shot is a powerful motivator.

That's also disregarding the worst-case scenario of a complete descent into civil war, whereby the US would end up with a refugee crisis on its southern border numbered in the millions. The head-in-the-sand approach of "oh, kick all the immigrants back out" really isn't addressing the major issues, and has the potential to lead to an unprecedented disaster.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

Metal Ken said:


> No, its not. Because if People refuse to hire them, there's NO reason to come here. Kicking them out, and allowing companies to hire illegal immigrants does nothing because they'll just jump the fence again. If there's no reason to jump the fence, though...



I never said companies should be allowed to hire illegal immigrants.

I do see we agree on one thing; like I posted earlier, you have to make the prospect of coming to America illegally less appealing. If they can't find work, are denied welfare handouts (how they are able to get these in the first place is complete bullshit), and have the real prospect of being deported, then that leaves very few reasons to come to America illegally.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> The head-in-the-sand approach of "oh, kick all the immigrants back out" really isn't addressing the major issues, and has the potential to lead to an unprecedented disaster.



How is wanting to rid your country of illegal immigrants a head-in-the-sand approach? If anything, the attitude of "let's be nice to them and hope the situation sorts itself out" is the head-in-the-sand approach.


If you cared to read the entire thread, people that live in the border states are very in tune with what is happening regarding the illegal immigrant situation. I know perfectly well what is happening in Mexico, it didn't just start happening yesterday. Bottom line, the US has it's own problems and can't afford to be Mexico's babysitter.

I'll stop here, before this thread heads off in a completely different direction about to whom the US should provide aid.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> I never said companies should be allowed to hire illegal immigrants.



I never said you did.


gunshow86de said:


> I do see we agree on one thing; like I posted earlier, you have to make the prospect of coming to America illegally less appealing. If they can't find work, are denied welfare handouts (how they are able to get these in the first place is complete bullshit), and have the real prospect of being deported, then that leaves very few reasons to come to America illegally.



Exactly. And this new Arizona law doesn't really deal with any of those aspects. There's even parts of Arizona now refusing to enforce it.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 28, 2010)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> Immigration (illegal or not) from Mexico isn't just a case of people looking to earn more money. Thanks pretty much exclusively to the War on Drugs, Mexico is rapidly becoming a failed state with truly horrific levels of violence - on a level with modern-day Iraq or Afghanistan.




Maybe now it is, but this is an issue that's been occuring for more than 30 years. even in the early 80s it was an issue (Interestingly enough, contrary to conservative principle, Reagan said that the US should grant amnesty for illegal aliens...)


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 28, 2010)

I don't care how "racist" it is, because I have to provide an ID, so everyone else should too, and it beats what happened in Germany. Just sayin'.


----------



## I_infect (Apr 28, 2010)

Speaking of which^...

At my local pizza joint today my friend working there (who I recently found out is illegal), we had an interesting conversation regarding today. The first thing he said was it reminded him of Nazi Germany, and I must admit, i see the comparison. With that said, I see this getting repealed at the federal level. If you look at the big picture, it's all a big chess game.. Arizona and other states are forcing Obama's hand on immigration. Wasn't Arizona John McCain's home state? It's going to make or break him in the next election. Do nothing, and he's even more of a fascist than he is now. Repeal it, and Republicans are going to have a field day with it, saying he condones illegal immigration et al. I can only imagine the mud. Alot of people want the borders closed, period. It's basically forcing immigration reform one way or the other.
so, to my illegal friend, I proposed, ok you want citizenship? How about if the govt gave it to you, but 2-5 years military service was mandatory? he said without hesitation he would gladly serve if it meant being a citizen for himself and his family(his children were born here though). It raises some interesting questions... the guy works 6 days a week, 12-13 hours a day running the place. I can't complain about his work ethic at all, or anything about him really. His character is pretty impeccable. How many of us would make that sacrifice for the military, no questions asked? I'm not saying my idea is the greatest, it just proves that there can be a solution to immigration that could please both liberals and conservatives.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 28, 2010)

I_infect said:


> Speaking of which^...
> 
> At my local pizza joint today my friend working there (who I recently found out is illegal), we had an interesting conversation regarding today. The first thing he said was it reminded him of Nazi Germany, and I must admit, i see the comparison. With that said, I see this getting repealed at the federal level. If you look at the big picture, ti's all a big chess game.. Arizona and other states are forcing Obama's hand on immigration. It's going to make or break him in the next election. Do nothing, and he's even more of a fascist than he is now. Repeal it, and Republicans are going to have a field day with it, saying he condones illegal immigration et al. I can only imagine the mud. Alot of people want the borders closed, period. It's basically forcing immigration reform one way or the other.
> so, to my illegal friend, I proposed, ok you want citizenship? How about if the govt gave it to you, but 2-5 years military service was mandatory? he said without hesitation he would gladly serve if it meant being a citizen for himself and his family(his children were born here though). It raises some interesting questions... the guy works 6 days a week, 12-13 hours a day running the place. I can't complain about his work ethic at all, or anything about him really. His character is pretty impeccable. How many of us would make that sacrifice for the military, no questions asked? I'm not saying my idea is the greatest, it just proves that there can be a solution to immigration that could please both liberals and conservatives.



Not every immigrant is as hard working, or as willing to sacrifice to be legal in this country as your friend. He is truly the exception to the rule. 

It's the 15 or so sitting out side the Home Depot down the street, as well as those living off of welfare via becoming baby-factories that give hardworking people like your friend a bad name. He should be just as furious, if not more at them. 

Have you ever asked your friend why he never came here legally? Do you think your friend's boss should be fined/jailed? Would you be willing to personally pay for your friends medical bills if he needed to go to the hospital? Would you pay for his children to go to school, completely out of your pocket? 

It's a complicated issue, but you have to realize that exceptions to the rules are just that, the exception. I'm sure of the roughly 12,000,000 (rough estimate based on minimum of 8 and maximum of 20 million) I'm sure there is 10,000 who work just as, if not more than your friend. 

I do agree with you 100% that this is going to force the federal government into doing something, as it rightfully should.

I personally know people like you friend, but I know and have seen a whole lot more of the exception with my very eyes.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 28, 2010)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I don't care how "racist" it is, because I have to provide an ID, so everyone else should too, and it beats what happened in Germany. Just sayin'.




Truth here. 

Back in that time, jews that WERE native citizens lost their business, homes and everything they owned if/when they were identified. Here the worst you'll get is a fine and maybe....just MAYBE be deported. Dear God, what a travesty against human rights...

Seriously though, it seems like nowadays everybody compares everything they disagree with to nazism. Don't like Obama's spending or health care? Label him a socialist Nazi. Don't like Bush's war? Yeah he's a war-mongering Hitler. (well he was a war-mongerer, but nothing on Hitler.)

Way to water down the profound negative impact that REAL nazis caused and insult the memories of those that died horrifically at the hands of those bastards.


But enough of that tangent, the real issue here (that has been restated many times by more than one person) is that it's easy to decry injustice when you live comfortably far-removed from the problem. Once it hits closer to home, your ability to show altruism dwindles. 

So far I see the solution as a multi-pronged one. You gotta hit the illegals themselves, the companies that hire them, and the government programs that coddle them. Also, as was stated there seems to be an almost prohibition-like frame of mind on the part of those that are supposed to be enforcing these laws. Apparently since officials disagree with the laws, they seem to feel that they don't need to enforce them. The law is the law, until the people decide otherwise. It's the official's job to enforce said law, until it is either amended or abolished.

So I propose that we remove from office/the force, those that do not do their job and enforce the will of the people as a collective whole.
Got a cop that won't ask for i.d.? Reprimand him/her. Got an elected official that doesn't provide the resources to enforce the law? Impeach them. That's how our constitution is set up. Once people have to be accountable for their actions, then we'll start seeing results.

The crappy thing about voting is that it doesn't always go YOUR way and it seems like people do a double standard of 'voting is an american ideal' yet they decry 'this is unamerican!!!' when that law was voted for by a majority and signed into law.  I also kinda chuckle when people that DON'T live in the U.S. say the same thing. You don't live here, so how the hell would you know how the government is run? Not a dig, just making a point. I mean if I started railing against how a country is run when I've never been there or walked in those people's shoes, then how could my opinion have any merit? Sure things might look bad to me from a 3rd person perspective, but it would take some digging/experience on my part to see the whole truth.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 28, 2010)

I_infect said:


> so, to my illegal friend, I proposed, ok you want citizenship? How about if the govt gave it to you, but 2-5 years military service was mandatory? he said without hesitation he would gladly serve if it meant being a citizen for himself and his family(his children were born here though). It raises some interesting questions... the guy works 6 days a week, 12-13 hours a day running the place. I can't complain about his work ethic at all, or anything about him really. His character is pretty impeccable. How many of us would make that sacrifice for the military, no questions asked? I'm not saying my idea is the greatest, it just proves that there can be a solution to immigration that could please both liberals and conservatives.


 
I think serving military for illegals who want to become citizens would be a good alternative. As for being like Nazi Germany, not quite. But I think this could prevent things from becoming like a nazi-state and requiring all Mexicans to leave or face the final solution. Which, btw, I would not condone because I think it's awful. I just think people should abide by the laws.


----------



## I_infect (Apr 28, 2010)

Agreed, and well put. I come from PA, where 20 minutes away the mayor of Hazleton made national news for making a law that forced you to speak english. That got repealed. As far as my friend he's in process, as is his wife. just not paper-legal yet. I don't exactly know the details. As far as his employer, well, I don't want to make pizza, so honestly he's not taking a job away from me. I know there's alot more to it than that but on a case to case basis, no, I don't have an opinion on his employer really. Healthcare is an entirely different issue that needs to be taken care of as well. As far as school, I went to private school, but my parents still had to pay school district taxes without any discounts, so it's kind of the same thing. I got grants for college so I can't really bitch about paying for other people to go via taxes. I know in principal of the issues you mean differently; on a personal level though I can't really bitch.
This all comes down to money. When it costs them more to jail and deport illegals than to offer amnesty(possibly via service, like I suggested) to those existing here, and close the borders(of which I'm proponent), immigration will get figured out. Alot more financially complicated but that's the short story.

Also, my cousin married a mexican. never understood how she did it... never had a date in high school, very plain jane, went to the prom with a friend... then all of a sudden she's getting married.... _ooooooooooooh._

seriously though i understand where you're coming from Max. Lotsa small and not so small details that turn good intentions into soggy, tangled spaghetti.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

@ghstofperdition
Nailed it!


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 28, 2010)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, those laws are federal laws, right? That means its up to the federal gov't. to support them. Which they aren't. Dealing with illegal immigration isn't really the job description of the standard on-the-road cop. Therein lies the part of the problem. ICE needs to get its ass in gear.


Very much agreed here.  Though there is the problem of the federal government trying not to ''offend'' a foreign nation so it then relaxes it's stance on immigration. Political correctness again stands in the way of doing the right thing.



Metal Ken said:


> No, its not. Because if People refuse to hire them, there's NO reason to come here. Kicking them out, and allowing companies to hire illegal immigrants does nothing because they'll just jump the fence again. If there's no reason to jump the fence, though...



Sure there is. I dunno about you, but I recall in the last 2 years reading about drug cartels gunning everybody down right by the texas/mexico border. 

Amnesty is a legal means of entering the country and I have no problem with the government granting it to those that are in that fucked up position. However, due the the lax/underfunded security in those areas, those cartel bastards have even killed/terrorized people on American soil. It isn't just about saving jobs/people paying their way anymore either. Now it's becoming a real threat to American citizen's lives as well. I think we can both safely agree that America has had enough terrorist attacks against it that tightening up the borders is justified right?


----------



## I_infect (Apr 28, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> So far I see the solution as a multi-pronged one. You gotta hit the illegals themselves, the companies that hire them, and the government programs that coddle them. Also, as was stated there seems to be an almost prohibition-like frame of mind on the part of those that are supposed to be enforcing these laws. Apparently since officials disagree with the laws, they seem to feel that they don't need to enforce them. The law is the law, until the people decide otherwise. It's the official's job to enforce said law, until it is either amended or abolished.



My political views are are neither here nor there; I voted for Obama and am plenty happy with what he's trying to accomplish.. I however favor a communist and anti capitalist ideology and have for quite some time, so I myself, am an exception to the rule. America I highly doubt will never be a communist or fascist state, and I am not making any comparisons about Obama.

I do agree with one part of what you said, I asked my friend how he came here... he said through mountains, desert and water. When he finally got here, there were trucks waiting between 5-6am along the highway, during the police shift change. He also said the police were well paid....


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

I can see the merit in offering citizenship in exchange for military service. But just imagine the shitstorm that would ensue from liberals; taking advantage of a desperate person and almost forcing them into military service. That would probably become quite the "hot-button" issue.

Plus, I'm not too good at history, but I think the whole enlisting a foreign army to fight your wars hasn't ever worked out too well.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> Plus, I'm not too good at history, but I think the whole enlisting a foreign army to fight your wars hasn't ever worked out too well.



Just ask Rome.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 28, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Just ask Rome.



Well, we seem to be following in their footsteps anyway. Why not, let's outsource our military to Mexico. Anyone from Canada need a job, like to travel?


----------



## I_infect (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> Plus, I'm not too good at history, but I think the whole enlisting a foreign army to fight your wars hasn't ever worked out too well.


yeah I thought about that as well. It was just something I thought of as a symbol for some kind of reward system for citizenship, and I know republicans like war, it's good for business! the liberals would get what they want, not deporting man, woman, and possibly citizen child.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> I can see the merit in offering citizenship in exchange for military service. But just imagine the shitstorm that would ensue from liberals; taking advantage of a desperate person and almost forcing them into military service. That would probably become quite the "hot-button" issue.
> 
> Plus, I'm not too good at history, but I think the whole enlisting a foreign army to fight your wars hasn't ever worked out too well.



Well if it's put as an 'option' then it no longer is really 'forcing' right? If we were doing 'slave-trade tactics' and caging up mexicans and shipping them off to Iraq to use as IED fodder, then yeah that would be fucked up. But when you say, 'well one way for you to gain citizenship is to serve in our military.' then it becomes entirely a matter of choice. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Though the thought of entrusting our nation's defense to the hands of foreigners does make me a little uneasy. There are many ways for that to be exploited and used against us. Least of all espionage. Nothing like turning an illegal into a nuclear technician and 5 months later, their country of origin is testing nukes (if they don't have them already). Yay for the atomic clock moving even closer to midnight!


----------



## I_infect (Apr 28, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> Well, we seem to be following in their footsteps anyway. Why not, let's outsource our military to Mexico. Anyone from Canada need a job, like to travel?



this seems to be a recurring problem, too much banter, and not enough solutions. ever wonder why the border isn't closed? it's pretty simple. You don't want a draft, close the door. Unless like what was said, it's not politically correct to offend a nation, i.e. we don't want to stop doing business with mexico, as they produce parts for chevrolet, fender guitars, countless other named and unnamed products. in the end, there's alot more going on than just immigration. we tolerate for a reason that goes beyond local jobs and factories and healthcare costs. the numbers make sense somewhere, believe me. we found reason to invade Iraq and turn it upside down, we can find reason to close our doors.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 28, 2010)

I_infect said:


> this seems to be a recurring problem, too much banter, and not enough solutions. ever wonder why the border isn't closed? it's pretty simple. You don't want a draft, close the door. Unless like what was said, it's not politically correct to offend a nation, i.e. we don't want to stop doing business with mexico, as they produce parts for chevrolet, fender guitars, countless other named and unnamed products. in the end, there's alot more going on than just immigration. we tolerate for a reason that goes beyond local jobs and factories and healthcare costs. the numbers make sense somewhere, believe me. we found reason to invade Iraq and turn it upside down, we can find reason to close our doors.







it all comes back to not pissing off people (though I'm not ALL against that seeing how many people hate the U.S. and the amount of enemies we have)

Sometimes (just sometimes) it really is better to act, than worry about what other people think. This is one of those times. Too many people are being negatively affected by this to continue ignoring/evading it. 

I mean the government can stop this NOW (and I DO mean within the next few hours) if it REALLY wanted to. But imagine the number of politicians that will be thrown under the bus for taking that action. Their prospects of retaining power and prestige will be obliterated and they have gotten too cozy with the idea that they run the show. (which they don't idyllically speaking) Suddenly all that talk about protecting the people and their interests kinda quiets down.

It would take someone with some HUGE cajones to really lay down the law. Someone with which retaining power holds no sway at all. How many officials do YOU know of that are like that?

I am in fact astounded that this bill was even passed to begin with. Kudos to the AZ government for at least trying!


----------



## I_infect (Apr 28, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> It would take someone with some HUGE cajones to really lay down the law. Someone with which retaining power holds no sway at all. How many officials do YOU know of that are like that?



exactly. well said. That's kind of what I'm getting at. Too many politicians are in bed with too many lobbyists, businesses etc. Not only the shock and awe value of it, but mexico's retaliation as far as embargos, taxes, who knows. On the other hand what happens to those here illegally after we would close the doors, if it were to happen? deport or amnesty? there needs to be a plan and it's got to be well thought out for any of it to work.



ghstofperdition said:


> I am in fact astounded that this bill was even passed to begin with. Kudos to the AZ government for at least trying!



it's a step; something will come of it either immediately or in the next presidential election.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Apr 29, 2010)

Jon Stewart Blasts Arizona Over Immigration Bill: "The Meth Lab of Democracy" - Jon Stewart - Gawker.TV


----------



## pink freud (Apr 29, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> But you're basing all that man-power on the thought that they actually want to work. Maybe further overhauling some government programs, such as food stamps, general relief and medical benefits would yield better results. Start there as a means of dissuading people from sneaking in here to have 20 kids and use that as an excuse to make a ton of cash in WIC and Food Stamps. A friend of mine has a daughter and just for her girl alone she gets $600/month in food stamps. Imagine when you start to pile up those birth certificates how much you can collect on that. A typical thing [all though illegal here in Ca, it still happens a lot] that people do is sell their food stamps for .50 on the dollar. If you make $1800/month in food stamps, selling them for that price yields you $900/month in cash. That's about as much as you make here in cali doing a minimum wage job or getting SSI benefits. And what kind of effort do you have to do? Practically nothing at all.
> 
> So $900/month for you to sit on your ass and do nothing? (maybe once every other week turn in a job search sheet that is so easy to manipulate)
> If that isn't a big incentive, then fuck if I know what one is.
> ...



I was under the impression that the vast majority of money made by illegal immigrants was sent back to Mexico to support their families.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 29, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> Jon Stewart Blasts Arizona Over Immigration Bill: "The Meth Lab of Democracy" - Jon Stewart - Gawker.TV



Jon Stewart isn't helping your argument.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 29, 2010)

pink freud said:


> I was under the impression that the vast majority of money made by illegal immigrants was sent back to Mexico to support their families.



Some is, though, that's typically from those either A) getting tons of odd jobs through out the community (see waiting outside Home Depot), or B) those who legitimately work very hard, find a job (or even a career). 

There isn't just one type of illegal immigrant.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Apr 29, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> Jon Stewart isn't helping your argument.



Helping or not, I was laughing


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 29, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> Sure there is. I dunno about you, but I recall in the last 2 years reading about drug cartels gunning everybody down right by the texas/mexico border.


Yeah, but like i said before, thats a relatively recent development in a problem thats been going on for over 30 years, though. 



ghstofperdition said:


> Amnesty is a legal means of entering the country and I have no problem with the government granting it to those that are in that fucked up position. However, due the the lax/underfunded security in those areas, those cartel bastards have even killed/terrorized people on American soil. It isn't just about saving jobs/people paying their way anymore either. Now it's becoming a real threat to American citizen's lives as well. I think we can both safely agree that America has had enough terrorist attacks against it that tightening up the borders is justified right?



Well, tightening up border patrol would be one solution. Another would be making the biggest drugs being shipped into America decriminalized. That'd destroy the cartel's ability to make any money off it (At least enough to make it worth while anyway), and eliminate a huge chunk of that problem.


----------



## Randy (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm not totally convinced there wouldn't still be a black market for drugs in this country, even if they were legalized. Those people aren't going to want to pay taxes, have to be licensed, allow them to be scrutinized by the FDA (or whoever will oversee things) and jump through the various hoops that they'll have to.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 29, 2010)

Randy said:


> I'm not totally convinced there wouldn't still be a black market for drugs in this country, even if they were legalized. Those people aren't going to want to pay taxes, have to be licensed, allow them to be scrutinized by the FDA (or whoever will oversee things) and jump through the various hoops that they'll have to.



Compare it with drugs which are already legalized. How often do you see people running Moonshine, or selling Tobacco in back alleys? 

The government tends to stiffen up when tax revenue is at stake. While there won't be an immediate effect, down the road, it could REALLY put these Cartels in their place. 

When prohibition was repealed in 1933 all the organized crime it created didn't disappear overnight, but certainly by the early 40's it had certainly been reduced.


----------



## Randy (Apr 29, 2010)

Organized crime will always find something to meddle in. Being the son of somebody who grew up in NYC during the 70's, they figured out how to make a racket out of picking up fucking garbage. Here in Schenectady, we have a HUGE problem with people peddling prescription drugs (which are technically legal) or going over the border to buy them in bulk and selling them here. In turn, they still kill eachother over profits, territory, etc.

I'm still not convinced.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 29, 2010)

Randy said:


> Organized crime will always find something to meddle in. Being the son of somebody who grew up in NYC during the 70's, they figured out how to make a racket out of picking up fucking garbage. Here in Schenectady, we have a HUGE problem with people peddling prescription drugs (which are technically legal) or going over the border to buy them in bulk and selling them here. In turn, they still kill eachother over profits, territory, etc.
> 
> I'm still not convinced.



Can you really compare the prescription drug black market, with that of the drugs coming from Central & South America? 

Last time I checked they weren't cutting people's heads off and putting them on pikes in Brooklyn, or setting off bombs in Central Park. The "mobsters" don't have paramilitary forces like the cartels. 

I'm not saying it would solve the problem, but it would certainly reduce it. Perhaps even down to a more manageable level.


----------



## Randy (Apr 29, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can you really compare the prescription drug black market, with that of the drugs coming from Central & South America?



I'm comparing the prescription drug black market to what a "legal" narcotic drug black market would look like in this country.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Last time I checked they weren't cutting people's heads off and putting them on pikes in Brooklyn, or setting off bombs in Central Park. The "mobsters" don't have paramilitary forces like the cartels.



I'd blame that on the lawlessness of Mexico. I don't think changing our policies here will change that.


----------



## unitas (Apr 29, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Well I for one see this law passing as a good thing. I'm an immigrant AND I'm Latino and I still think this is needed. Sure it's ripe for abuse, that's a given with just about any law. But it's Arizona's choice, the people spoke, or their elected officials did on their behalf. Something, anything, needs to be done with the Illegal Immigration issue. While this may seem a bit heavy handed, the times have called for a heavy handed solution.
> 
> No more pussy footing around the issue. Since opening up the border and providing amnesty isn't going to fly, you get this instead. Maybe at some point a better balance can be struck. The way I see it, illegal immigrants have no US rights. I don't give a flying fuck if they're here already, in my mind they have no constitutional protection or special status other than breaking the law. They should be deported back to their country to wait at the end of the line like everyone else trying to get over here legitimately. There should be fewer roadblocks to becoming a citizen or permanent resident if you can prove:
> 
> ...



QFT.

And to the critics that have zero first-hand experience with why illegal immigration is such a problem, I suggest reading the bill and not taking soundbytes as actual legislation.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf


----------



## unitas (Apr 29, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> I don't think there is any racist agenda behind this. This law addresses a very serious issue. Sure, there will be legal immigrants and natural born Hispanic citizens who are questioned under suspicion, but so what? If you are here legally, then how hard is it to show a piece of paper to the officer?



It's not even that, a cop cannot question legal status unless the person broke the law first. He can't just walk up and demand ID solely because he thinks a person's here illegally. The person must have broken the law prior, THEN the officer can question legal status. No different than if a cop pulls someone over for swerving or speeding or running a red light and then asks if they've been drinking. The forms of ID that are sufficient as proof of legal status is a driver's license, ID card, military ID, passport, the "greencard", and work/travel/school visa's. Greencards and visa's are required by federal law to be carried on your person anyway. So this law doesn't require anyone to carry any extra ID than what you normally should carry anyway.

This law was to do away with Az's previous cacth and release policy. There was no punishment at all for breaking federal immigration law. Now it is required by law that illegals are turned over to ICE for deportation.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 29, 2010)

unitas said:


> QFT.
> 
> And to the critics that have zero first-hand experience with why illegal immigration is such a problem, I suggest reading the bill and not taking soundbytes as actual legislation.
> 
> http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf



How about critics that are also Sheriffs and Police Chiefs in Arizona? Maybe they should have read the bill first.


----------



## unitas (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> How about critics that are also Sheriffs and Police Chiefs in Arizona? Maybe they should have read the bill first.



The sheriffs and police chiefs don't have zero experience with illegal immigration, only healthy doses of denial and political correctness.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> How about critics that are also Sheriffs and Police Chiefs in Arizona? Maybe they should have read the bill first.



Absolutely they should. What you're seeing are knee-jerk reactions based on the color of one's skin or the *possible* negative outcomes. If cops are worried about their lives they really ought to look into other lines of work. I think people are far too quick to jump on the "I'm brown, they're picking on me" bandwagon.

Fuck that shit. Man up. If you're here legally, you have nothing worry about. If you're not, maybe it's high time you got off your ass and did something about it instead of complaining, filing lawsuits and bitching like spoiled kids.


----------



## unitas (Apr 29, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Absolutely they should.



Precisely. I dunno how many know this but Az has over a $1.7bil deficit, and the largest deficit to spending ratio in America. It costs $1.3 bil per year for the education, medical care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants here. Police chiefs should definitely pay attention to this because part of the proposed budget cuts is laying off 350 police officers. My sister-in-law was laid off because of budget cuts to the DOT. How about instead of cutting public jobs like police, firefighters and teachers, we stop paying for illegals public benefits? That solves a huge portion of the problem of the deficit and I won't have to pay for benefits for people who pay nothing into it.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 29, 2010)

unitas said:


> Precisely. I dunno how many know this but Az has over a $1.7bil deficit, and the largest deficit to spending ratio in America. It costs $1.3 bil per year for the education, medical care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants here. Police chiefs should definitely pay attention to this because part of the proposed budget cuts is laying off 350 police officers. My sister-in-law was laid off because of budget cuts to the DOT. How about instead of cutting public jobs like police, firefighters and teachers, we stop paying for illegals public benefits? That solves a huge portion of the problem of the deficit and I won't have to pay for benefits for people who pay nothing into it.




Oh but we can't do that! The horror! That means someone won't be getting something for nothing anymore! Oh and their feelings will be hurt too!!


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 29, 2010)

unitas said:


> The sheriffs and police chiefs don't have zero experience with illegal immigration, only healthy doses of denial and political correctness.



Yes, I'm sure cops that are face to face with the illegal immigration problem in Arizona on a daily basis, some of them for decades, are against the law because they're in denial or to be politically correct. 

Why did I even respond to your absurd post. Good grief.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 29, 2010)

orb451 said:


> I'm an immigrant and I'm Latino.my thoughts on the issue are that if you're going to come to this country you damned well better:
> 
> 1. work
> 2. speak, read and write English
> 3. not send a great portion of your income right back across the border



I'm wondering how a Latino immigrant in the US ends up being that passionate about mandating immigrants to speak/read/write English.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> Yes, I'm sure cops that are face to face with the illegal immigration problem in Arizona on a daily basis, some of them for decades, are against the law because they're in denial or to be politically correct.
> 
> Why did I even respond to your absurd post. Good grief.



I'd say that any cop worried about how this law passing is suddenly going to turn those that are already breaking federal law, into red-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth, anarchy-wreaking savages hell bent on killing as many cops as possible as equally absurd. Like I said, if they're worried about their own safety so much, they're in the wrong line of work. 

I think the remainder of officers that oppose the law are either lazy and don't want to have to to do the paperwork needed to get people transferred to ICE or are Latino themselves and feel like this is somehow a show of solidarity.

When you've lived in a border state for a few years, get back to us and let us know how it worked out for you.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> I'm wondering how a Latino immigrant in the US ends up being that passionate about mandating immigrants to speak/read/write English.



It's simple. It's called doing the right fucking thing. I wouldn't emigrate to Mexico or some other Spanish speaking country, try to become a citizen or resident and sit back and say "I want to continue speaking English, you all should have to learn MY language so I can communicate". To me that's insanely arrogant.

What I love about America is that it's a melting pot for many cultures. Part of that *melting* process is assimilation. Knowing where you're from, but NOT letting it dictate where you must go in life. Speaking two languages is a blessing, not a burden. The sooner the rest of these people take their prideful heads out of their asses and realize that, the better.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 29, 2010)

orb451 said:


> ...red-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth, anarchy-wreaking savages hell bent...



Could you write that up on a chalkboard for us?

Blame the cops for being lazy, blame the cops for being pussies, blame the people that cross the border for a better life... anything but blaming the the system in place that for all intents and purposes welcomes illegals into the country and gives them an income and a better quality of life as an illegal alien in the US than as a legal citizen of their own countries.

Let's just round em up and ship em out! Drill baby drill!


----------



## orb451 (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> Could you write that up on a chalkboard for us?
> 
> Blame the cops for being lazy, blame the cops for being pussies, blame the people that cross the border for a better life... anything but blaming the the system in place that for all intents and purposes welcomes illegals into the country and gives them an income and a better quality of life as an illegal alien in the US than as a legal citizen of their own countries.
> 
> Let's just round em up and ship em out! Drill baby drill!



Dude, I'm not blaming the cops for being lazy, I'm speculating on the reasoning behind some of them opposing the law. See the distinction? I don't know them personally, I can't say what their *real* motives are. Because you agree with them, you feel it bolsters your argument that they're right, that the law is bad, or wrong. What about the cops that *do* support it?

What of them? Are they the insane ones? Are they wrong because they think it'll help? Are you saying every single cop in AZ are saying unanimously that it's wrong and therefore should be repealed? If so, I hadn't heard that bit of news yet.

And no, to be honest I don't blame the people that want a better life for themselves provided they (in my opinion, and if I had my way) did the three things I listed which by my estimation aren't even vaguely unreasonable. If they want a better life for themselves they should think before acting. Before taking the *easy* road, that has become so god damned easy because people will gladly let them leech off of our system. As I said, for every few that are here to actually work, contribute and make our society a better place, there are vast numbers of others who gladly think they're entitled to a better station in life simply because... well... that's how they feel. That sense of entitlement is wrong in my eyes.

Immigration is a big issue, if you think the answer is one law, repealed or not, or one bit of action, or inaction, you're wrong. This law is just making life tougher for law breakers, how anyone could be against that is beyond me. And moreover, if you want to fix immigration you take steps. This law is a step. Getting other states on-board and eventually forcing the fed to crackdown further is another step. Another one after that is cracking down on employers who exploit their labor. Another step will be legalizing drugs so the cartels won't have a nation by it's balls. Another step would be a cheap and easy path to legal citizenship, again (if I had my way) provided the prospective citizen could demonstrate their willingness to work, assimilate and not send every penny they get right back across the border.

But hey, if you think it's all black/white, republican mantra vs. democrat, that's your business.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> Could you write that up on a chalkboard for us?
> 
> Blame the cops for being lazy, blame the cops for being pussies, blame the people that cross the border for a better life... anything but blaming the the system in place that for all intents and purposes welcomes illegals into the country and gives them an income and a better quality of life as an illegal alien in the US than as a legal citizen of their own countries.
> 
> Let's just round em up and ship em out! Drill baby drill!



That's right, because the system is always solely at fault, and there's no such thing as personal, individual responsibility.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 29, 2010)

orb451 said:


> It's simple. It's called doing the right fucking thing. I wouldn't emigrate to Mexico or some other Spanish speaking country, try to become a citizen or resident and sit back and say "I want to continue speaking English, you all should have to learn MY language so I can communicate". To me that's insanely arrogant.
> 
> What I love about America is that it's a melting pot for many cultures. Part of that *melting* process is assimilation. Knowing where you're from, but NOT letting it dictate where you must go in life. Speaking two languages is a blessing, not a burden. The sooner the rest of these people take their prideful heads out of their asses and realize that, the better.



A typical right wing position- ideals before people.

By offering multi-lingual support for immigrants, we are helping them 'assimilate'. If they choose to not learn English, there are significant drawbacks, but that is their choice. The vast majority learn at least some English. Many that learn some English also continue to primarily use their native language. Now what is un-American about the freedom to speak/read/write the language of your heritage, in public or in private?


----------



## unitas (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> blame the people that cross the border for a better life...



I don't blame immigrants at all. Our country was founded on immigrants. I blame those that steal entry into this country thumbing their nose at the law and the people who persevered to get here legally and respect the law, and on top of it all I get more money taken from my paycheck as a result.

Everyone has the right to leave their country to seek a better life somewhere else, but it is the destination country's prerogative whether or not to receive them.

You should look at Mexico's immigration laws and then tell me with a straight face Az is too cruel.


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 29, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's right, because the system is always solely at fault, and there's no such thing as personal, individual responsibility.



Is providing and making a better life for your family and loved ones not an individual responsibility?


----------



## orb451 (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> A typical right wing position- ideals before people.
> 
> By offering multi-lingual support for immigrants, we are helping them 'assimilate'. If they choose to not learn English, there are significant drawbacks, but that is their choice. The vast majority learn at least some English. Many that learn some English also continue to primarily use their native language. Now what is un-American about the freedom to speak/read/write the language of your heritage, in public or in private?



In the privacy of their own homes, there is nothing wrong with them speaking their native language(s).

What is un-American about them doing it in public is assuming that you don't need to learn the native language of the country you're living in! My example stands. If I moved to Russia, I would expect to learn Russian. I would not ask for, or expect any handouts from the government in finding my way through life over there. Likewise, if I moved to Mexico, I would expect to learn Spanish. It's called survival. It's called common sense. By offering multi-lingual support for immigrants ad nauseum we've just given them a crutch to fall back on (which they have) and thus made things more difficult in the long for them and us.

Imagine for a second what it was like on Ellis Island when millions of Europeans from all these different countries came over to America. Imagine if your idea had been in place as far as speaking the language goes. It would have been a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Someone, somewhere, however Evil they might have been, decided "hey, this is America, we speak English here, FUCKING LEARN IT" and you know what? They learned it. 

As to your comment about "typical right wing position" comment goes, you don't know me, let's leave it at that.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> Is providing and making a better life for your family and loved ones not an individual responsibility?



Again, not when you're choosing to break the law to do it. Not when you rely on someone's government to speak your language, pay for your medical care, pay for your food, pay for your housing, etc.

Not every immigrant from Mexico is trying to move here illegally. I personally know several that are jumping through hoops to do it legally, the right way and I support them fully in staying on the up and up. Are they expected to continue to let others cut in front of them in lines they've been waiting in for literally years, just because?


----------



## Krullnar (Apr 29, 2010)

unitas said:


> I don't blame immigrants at all. Our country was founded on immigrants. I blame those that steal entry into this country thumbing their nose at the law and the people who persevered to get here legally and respect the law, and on top of it all I get more money taken from my paycheck as a result.



How many parents will be deported back to Mexico with their children still in the US? What if that illegal immigrant is just doing what he/she knows to do to get by in the US, and is a decent good person with loved ones here that are legal citizens, but is deported from Arizona back to Mexico leaving a broken family? What if that illegal immigrant was the breadwinner? How do you resolve the human, ethical issue here?

I can't. There has to be a better way than a police round up for deportation.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> How many parents will be deported back to Mexico with their children still in the US? What if that illegal immigrant is just doing what he/she knows to do to get by in the US, and is a decent good person with loved ones here that are legal citizens, but is deported from Arizona back to Mexico leaving a broken family? What if that illegal immigrant was the breadwinner? How do you resolve the human, ethical issue here?
> 
> I can't. There has to be a better way than a police round up for deportation.



They should have thought about that before they decided to break the law.  

Breaking a law (any law) has repercussions.


----------



## orb451 (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> How many parents will be deported back to Mexico with their children still in the US? What if that illegal immigrant is just doing what he/she knows to do to get by in the US, and is a decent good person with loved ones here that are legal citizens, but is deported from Arizona back to Mexico leaving a broken family? What if that illegal immigrant was the breadwinner? How do you resolve the human, ethical issue here?
> 
> I can't. There has to be a better way than a police round up for deportation.



A close friend of mine is in that EXACT situation. He's a citizen, 100% legal. His wife was here illegally. She had several kids. They applied for citizenship and she got deported back to Mexico. She's living over there right now, waiting patiently for her paperwork to clear. He's the breadwinner of the family and remained here with the kids, but they did go and stay with her for a while and he does make regular visits.

It's a shit sandwich. There's no easy way around it. But he's doing what he needs to, to get her back over here quickly and legally. If I had known him back in the day, or anyone else I meet in the future, I'd definitely recommend to them NOT having kids if they're here illegally for innumerable reasons. Not the least of which is the scenario above. But what's done is done.

So what's your solution then? Amnesty for all? Let the people like my friend that have waited months and spent their hard earned money pissed away because someone waves their wand and *poof* it's suddenly legal for everyone and anyone to become a citizen? That's a nice kick in the balls there. What were you saying about ideals before people again???


----------



## unitas (Apr 29, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> They should have thought about that before they decided to break the law.
> 
> Breaking a law (any law) has repercussions.



+1


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> A typical right wing position- ideals before people.
> 
> By offering multi-lingual support for immigrants, we are helping them 'assimilate'. If they choose to not learn English, there are significant drawbacks, but that is their choice. The vast majority learn at least some English. Many that learn some English also continue to primarily use their native language. Now what is un-American about the freedom to speak/read/write the language of your heritage, in public or in private?




It's not a right wing position, it's a common sense position. You can't function in a society if you are unable to communicate with other people. If you don't want to assimilate into a society, then don't move there.

And for the record, I'm no where near right-wing.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 29, 2010)

Krullnar said:


> How many parents will be deported back to Mexico with their children still in the US? What if that illegal immigrant is just doing what he/she knows to do to get by in the US, and is a decent good person with loved ones here that are legal citizens, but is deported from Arizona back to Mexico leaving a broken family? What if that illegal immigrant was the breadwinner? How do you resolve the human, ethical issue here?
> 
> I can't. There has to be a better way than a police round up for deportation.



It's called accountability. If you break a law, you should suffer the consequences. Is that being short-sided? Perhaps, but I feel that when you are dealing with the law, you have to remove emotion and deal with the issue at hand.

Will people be hurt by the enforcement of this law and similar ones? Almost certainly. But will the law serve an important purpose? I absolutely believe so.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 30, 2010)

I see bleeding hearts up in here. xD (j/k)


Look, if you don't want to reap the negative consequences, don't break the law. Who's at fault for being separated from their kids for being here illegally? The person that illegally entered the country. Obviously they're not that responsible because they didn't take the time to cover their ass. Cold-hearted? Maybe. But the truth really sucks sometimes. 

However, if people feel that bad about it, the kids can go back across the border with their parents. I'm not saying that the kids should lose THEIR citizenship, but the worst-case scenario is that the kid ends up in foster care (which I've been in and can testify is complete hell) and it could be YEARS before the parents get the kids back. It doesn't only seem right that kids stay with their parents. But just outright granting amnesty to people just because they became a baby factory when they got here is wrong.


----------



## IDLE (May 1, 2010)

I'm definitely not a bleeding heart, but the 4rth amendment must be protected. Something heavy handed needs to be done, but this isn't it. I see it as a double edged sword, yes it will probably work, but it will harm the citizens in the process. It's like what the gang task forces in Los Angeles did for a while. They worked damn well, but at a very high ethical cost.


----------



## TemjinStrife (May 1, 2010)

IDLE said:


> I'm definitely not a bleeding heart, but the 4rth amendment must be protected. Something heavy handed needs to be done, but this isn't it. I see it as a double edged sword, yes it will probably work, but it will harm the citizens in the process. It's like what the gang task forces in Los Angeles did for a while. They worked damn well, but at a very high ethical cost.





And, as lame as it sounds, I'm all for upholding our constitutional privileges, as I don't want to start a dangerous legal precedent that might damage or remove other protections granted through the Constitution.


----------



## RenegadeDave (May 1, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> And, as lame as it sounds, I'm all for upholding our constitutional privileges, as I don't want to start a dangerous legal precedent that might damage or remove other protections granted through the Constitution.



I don't view this as a 4th amendment issue at all. Especially if the state enacts a law that #1 allows police to ask for documentation and #2 requires citizens to carry it. Asking to see the documentation is hardly "unreasonable". 

Is it ideal? No. But neither is the current system and obviously there is a problem with illegal immigration.


----------



## TemjinStrife (May 1, 2010)

Requiring citizens to carry documentation proving their citizenship when they're out for a walk, and fining or penalizing them if they don't? I'm sorry, that offends me on a fundamental level.

Just as much as subjecting citizens to random searches, requiring citizens to carry identification under penalty of law strikes me as very un-American, instead hearkening back to police states.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> Requiring citizens to carry documentation proving their citizenship when they're out for a walk, and fining or penalizing them if they don't? I'm sorry, that offends me on a fundamental level.
> 
> Just as much as subjecting citizens to random searches, requiring citizens to carry identification under penalty of law strikes me as very un-American, instead hearkening back to police states.



Though, they've been required to carry said papers (which can be as simple as a driver's license) far before this recent state law was enacted.


Everyone does realize that the person has to be "stop[ped] for some other offense" before they can request to see proper ID? In other words, the police can't just go up to a couple Hispanic people who are just going about their day and demand identification. They would have to be committing a crime first.

Source:
Arizona HB2162, Section 3


----------



## Randy (May 1, 2010)

Like jaywalking, littering, or loitering, no doubt. 

I dunno if it's like that where everyone else lives, but the cops here will pull you over for any ol' thing if they know there's something else they can bust you for. Case in point, you need to get your car inspected every year here, but I don't think they have authorization to pull you over just to check your sticker; so they come up with excuses. 

I've had friends pulled over for "restricted vision" because they had ONE of those pine tree air fresheners hanging on the rear view mirror, friends pulled over for "speeding" when they were going from a 45 - 55 (for going 53mph actually passing the 55mph sign), I've been pulled over for "leaving my high beams on" when passing a cop when I didn't (and no, they're not hyper-white bulbs), and I've been pulled over for "signaling too early". All happened coincidently when the inspection was due when meanwhile, they don't bother me with half that shit when my paperwork is all straight.


----------



## Syrinx (May 1, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Though, they've been required to carry said papers (which can be as simple as a driver's license) far before this recent state law was enacted.
> 
> Everyone does realize that the person has to be "stop[ped] for some other offense" before they can request to see proper ID? In other words, the police can't just go up to a couple Hispanic people who are just going about their day and demand identification. They would have to be committing a crime first.
> 
> ...



There's an article in today's AZ Republic about someone who was jailed for 2 weeks because he didn't have his driver's license on him at the time. However he did provide other legal papers including a visa and passport. He was stopped for a right turn violation. Neither of those warrant jailing, and certainly not 2 weeks. 

So now us AZ taxpayers have to deal with yet another lawsuit against Sheriff Joe and his boys.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2010)

Randy said:


> Like jaywalking, littering, or loitering, no doubt.
> 
> I dunno if it's like that where everyone else lives, but the cops here will pull you over for any ol' thing if they know there's something else they can bust you for. Case in point, you need to get your car inspected every year here, but I don't think they have authorization to pull you over just to check your sticker; so they come up with excuses.
> 
> I've had friends pulled over for "restricted vision" because they had ONE of those pine tree air fresheners hanging on the rear view mirror, I've been pulled over for "leaving my high beams on" when passing a cop when I didn't (and no, they're not hyper-white bulbs), and I've been pulled over for "signaling too early". All happened coincidently when the inspection was due when meanwhile, they don't bother me with half that shit when my paperwork is all straight.



Well, cross at a cross walk, throw your trash in the proper receptacle, and find something better to do than waiting around outside. Is it really that difficult? 

As for the driving part, if you're an illegal in AZ you're driving without a proper license, as well as no insurance. You shouldn't be in a car either way. 

Though, I don't know about you but every time I've been stopped I've had to provide my driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Being legal or illegal is a moot point in that situation, as no matter what your immigration status, without proper paperwork anyone would get carted off to the local station.



Syrinx said:


> There's an article in today's AZ Republic about someone who was jailed for 2 weeks because he didn't have his driver's license on him at the time. However he did provide other legal papers including a visa and passport. He was stopped for a right turn violation. Neither of those warrant jailing, and certainly not 2 weeks.
> 
> So now us AZ taxpayers have to deal with yet another lawsuit against Sheriff Joe and his boys.



Though, that's not related to this new bill, as it doesn't go into effect till July 28th.

In fact due to this new bill, things like this will likely be "watched" with far more scrutiny from the public as well as law makers.

EDIT: Can you post the article, I can't find it on the AZ Republic website.


----------



## Randy (May 1, 2010)

The point is if they look at you and suspect you might be an illegal, they can and will find a reason to check you. Whether or not you find that problem is your opinion, but don't try to feed us this "you need to be stopped for another offense" cock-and-bull because they'll come up with something no matter what. I've been on both sides of the law enough to know that they'll do whatever suits their cause, regardless of how fair or even legal it is (I've been friends with police who admittedly planted evidence, roughed up drunks because they wouldn't remember or nobody would believe them, admitted deliberately pulling attractive women over just to get them to sweet talk them out of tickets, etc. the list goes on).

Besides, there's a difference between providing papers when you're driving a vehicle (a privilege) and walking around minding your own business (a right).


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2010)

Randy said:


> The point is if they look at you and suspect you might be an illegal, they can and will find a reason to check you. Whether or not you find that problem is your opinion, but don't try to feed us this "you need to be stopped for another offense" cock-and-bull because they'll come up with something no matter what. I've been on both sides of the law enough to know that they'll do whatever suits their cause, regardless of how fair or even legal it is (I've been friends with police who admittedly planted evidence, roughed up drunks because they wouldn't remember or nobody would believe them, admitted deliberately pulling attractive women over just to get them to sweet talk them out of tickets, etc. the list goes on).
> 
> Besides, there's a difference between providing papers when you're driving a vehicle (a privilege) and walking around minding your own business (a right).



Just because some cops (apparently your "friends") are pieces of shit, doesn't mean all cops are pieces of shit. While I'm sure a lot of "funny business" will be going on, I'm not writing off this bill just because of a few bad apples. 

Going off of the "evil cop" theory, no laws can be enforced fairly, thus what's the point of passing them? 

As for the driving part, you're the one who brought it up. I see we're in full agreement on that part.


----------



## Syrinx (May 1, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Though, that's not related to this new bill, as it doesn't go into effect till July 28th.
> 
> In fact due to this new bill, things like this will likely be "watched" with far more scrutiny from the public as well as law makers.


Nothing will change. They'll still use the "illegal right turn" to justify the stop.



> EDIT: Can you post the article, I can't find it on the AZ Republic website.



I got it from the paper, not the website.


----------



## Randy (May 1, 2010)

The point is that there are laws that are put in place which blatantly nuzzle up against the notion of being unconstitutional but they're almost always allowed because "well, if you don't have anything to hide than you don't have anything to be afraid of" and at a certain point, enough is enough. The fact that I've know police (again, from either side of law) that abused the system for their own reasons voids this assertion that these kind of powers should be left in the hands of people. 

During the Bush warrant-less wiretapping fiasco, everybody was up in arms about the fact that we were legally being wiretapped, but the majority of people inevitably said "ah, well, it's not like I'm saying anything illegal over the phone, so what's it matter". Well, that's mostly true but stories started popping up about state/local law enforcement being instructed to use these methods, but to wiretap political opponents, spouses they suspected of cheating, etc. The point being that having laws like this in effect provide _more_ opportunities for abuses that aren't against the people the law's originally designed to be used against.

The driving example was simply to explain that there will always be an abuse of the "well, you can't be stopped for THAT... it has to be for something else" rule. Not specifically targeting the laws themselves as, you're correct, you're expected to always have your appropriate paperwork on your person/vehicle if you're operating the vehicle. It's the grounds/means by which they initiate acquiring those papers that is in question.

EDIT: If the expectation is that, when you're operating a motor vehicle, expect that you can be pulled over at any time for any reason... why are there legal restrictions as to what you can pulled over for? IMO, that would be because even though you have more rules you need to adhere to, it doesn't entirely void the concept that you cannot be stopped/questioned/detained without just cause. There are some deviations, but your right to 'go about your business' is still legally relevant even then.


----------



## Syrinx (May 1, 2010)

Here's the portion from the article..



> But the case of Sergio Martinez-Villaman offers a glimpse at what critics of the law fear most.
> 
> Sheriff's deputies stopped Martinez-Villaman, a Mexican citizen living legally in the U.S., during a June 2008 crime-suppression operation in Mesa.
> 
> ...



13 days for not using a turn signal and no driver's license. For anyone else, you would get a ticket for not having a license and could get it dropped once it was presented in front of a judge. You wouldn't spend 13 days in jail.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2010)

Syrinx said:


> Here's the portion from the article..
> 
> 
> 
> 13 days for not using a turn signal and no driver's license. For anyone else, you would get a ticket for not having a license and could get it dropped once it was presented in front of a judge. You wouldn't spend 13 days in jail.



That is pretty bad, and does set the precedent for stuff like this to occur, namely the shady operations of that deputy. 

Though, this happened just about two years ago apparently. While that doesn't take away from what happened, it kinda takes away it's weight in current events.


----------



## daemon barbeque (May 2, 2010)

I live in France now, and the French government pushed the police force to control the papers of "shady" people, or better said, possible aliens.
Well, what happens is, many Arabic and African French citizen is just abused every day. They asked some guy 8 times a day, for a week. The police have the right for that, so they abuse it.
There are so many European or caucasian illegal workers, but nobody wants to deal with them. If you are illegal but not Black/Arab, you are safe!

If this is the point you want to come, the Arizona bill is right! For me, it's Bullshit!

1) It doesn't help your state deficit, since illegals have no social rights. 
2) The police already throw out the illegals, if they have to.
3)The Illegals are going to watch their backs more, won't work normal and the criminality will rise.
4) Policemen will abuse some citizens with asking for papers every fucking day, hour. You have no right to tell them no, fuck-off!
This tendencies for the Police-state are not funny.


----------



## gunshow86de (May 2, 2010)

daemon barbeque said:


> 1) It doesn't help your state deficit, since illegals have no social rights.
> 2) The police already throw out the illegals, if they have to.
> 3)The Illegals are going to watch their backs more, won't work normal and the criminality will rise.
> 4) Policemen will abuse some citizens with asking for papers every fucking day, hour. You have no right to tell them no, fuck-off!
> This tendencies for the Police-state are not funny.



1) Illegals are, somehow, able to obtain government assistance. The are able to receive welfare and use public hospitals. Illegal immigrants also do not pay taxes. I'd say they have a significant impact on government finances, especially in a state like Arizona.
2) The police have almost no jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. That is a job of the federal government; which they are failing to do.
3) They should already be watching their backs, THEY BECAME CRIMINALS WHEN THEY TOOK RESIDENCE IN THE US. (why do so many people seem to miss this point?)
4) The police have to have a legitimate reason to stop them. I know that some police will abuse this power, and stop people for bullshit reasons. This is a sad reality, but immigration reform is a necessity. In the US, policemen are required to give you their name and badge number so that you can file a complaint. If a police officer begins to profile, it shouldn't take long before his superiors receive enough complaints to fire him.


This bill in Arizona is not perferct, but at the very least, it's has made it impossible for the federal government to ignore immigration reform any longer.


----------



## daemon barbeque (May 2, 2010)

If illegals obtain social assistance, stopping this assistance will solve the problem. And every illegal who get assistance is a "known" illegal already, so deporting him/her is pretty easy! you don't have to stop people and ask for papers to get that done!

I don't miss the point of illegals and their illegal status. But if you ever feel hunted, you will act differently.

There is no way you can give police too much possibilities, force, rights etc. Anyone on earth with power will use it. The very foundation of civilized democracy is balance of power, and this law destroy the balance between citizens and police forces. A problem like illegal immigration can be solved differently, you don't have to take rights from citizens and give new ones to the police to fight against it!


----------



## daemon barbeque (May 2, 2010)

Of course, I don't want to be a Nay-Sayer!
This is my solution for the Immigration problem.

1) Kick the shit out of the companies who employs illegals. They are not just giving job to illegals, but they are stealing tax-money.

2)Take care of the border, rotate border police forces to prevent Drug cartel connections.

3)Stop giving social help to the Illegals. 

4)Make it easier to become an American, and put a "2-3" year of social help prevention.

5)Train your police and federal forces to be fair, but effective. Putting money in Police/FBI training will be much cheaper than hunting down innocent people!


----------

