News Arizona Immigration Law: Examining the Debate

[WhoWee]

Is a lack of racial and ethnic diversity assumed in this discussion? Is the AZ police population predominately white male heterosexual (AND biased)?

 

[cronxeh]

Oh and another thing, has it ever occurred to you that the reason a lot of corporate crime goes unnoticed is because the regulators in the government are employed because of affirmitive action and not merit?

OK I must recant my earlier statement regarding employment of minorities in the federal government. I got the statistics, and the breakdown is as follows:

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as of Sept 30 2006 had total of 3596 employees of which 1160 (32.3%) were minorities. that's 680 (18.9%) blacks, 172 (4.8%) hispanics, 297 (8.3%) asians, and 2436 (67.7%) whites.

I think we've carried this conversation into the wrong territory and personal believes or disbelieves, whether factual or anecdotal have gotten into the mix. I'm sorry for that.

Lets return to the talk at hand - Arizona and immigration law. I don't see a solution to this problem to be honest. There is just no way to close down 600 miles of border and stop the Mexican citizens from coming to US in search of a better life. It is also unfair to burden the rest of the American population, whether white black or purple, by hiring the illegal immigrants instead of hiring the local citizens and paying them higher salary and all the commensurate benefits. If you enforce the law by prosecuting the employers then you force the Mexican illegal immigrants to commit crime in order to survive, backing them against the corner. This is not the solution. Allowing those who are already here is not practical since there are millions here, and that would only reinforce the convictions of those who cross the border illegally.

 

[mheslep]

There is just no way to close down 600 miles of border and stop the Mexican citizens from coming to US in search of a better life.

For all practical purposes yes there is. It is not possible to stop every person nor is that necessary; it is certainly possible to stop one million per year. One million people can not all scale a high double fence with a ladder without notice. The US helps maintain a border between N and S Korea against a one million man army and it can maintain the Mexican border as well.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

OK I must recant my earlier statement regarding employment of minorities in the federal government. I got the statistics, and the breakdown is as follows:

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as of Sept 30 2006 had total of 3596 employees of which 1160 (32.3%) were minorities. that's 680 (18.9%) blacks, 172 (4.8%) hispanics, 297 (8.3%) asians, and 2436 (67.7%) whites.

I think we've carried this conversation into the wrong territory and personal believes or disbelieves, whether factual or anecdotal have gotten into the mix. I'm sorry for that.

Lets return to the talk at hand - Arizona and immigration law. I don't see a solution to this problem to be honest. There is just no way to close down 600 miles of border and stop the Mexican citizens from coming to US in search of a better life. It is also unfair to burden the rest of the American population, whether white black or purple, by hiring the illegal immigrants instead of hiring the local citizens and paying them higher salary and all the commensurate benefits. If you enforce the law by prosecuting the employers then you force the Mexican illegal immigrants to commit crime in order to survive, backing them against the corner. This is not the solution. Allowing those who are already here is not practical since there are millions here, and that would only reinforce the convictions of those who cross the border illegally.

There is an obvious solution, which is to divert resources from a meaningless border fence which is a losing game, and make the penalties for employing people who immigrated illegally prohibitive. Enforce that with extreme prejudice, and profile using finances instead of race. To why it cannot be done, this full racial profiling, is that it is not legal. It is not that crimes cannot be nearly eliminated, but you must choose what to sacrifice to achieve this. If the penalty for driving drunk was summary execution, I imagine this crime would plummet. It is easy to SAY "all crimes are equal", but they are not. There are property crimes, and crimes against persons, murder, and rape, and economic exploitation.

Doesn't your math tell you that one Bernie Madoff does more damage than dozens of bank robbers? Enron's collapse and Lehmen Brothers, the problems with CitiBank and Goldman Sachs, this does more damage than every bank robber and convenience store hood in all time! Enforce bank robberies, because if you do not, it becomes a crime worth doing. You protect convenience stores because so often it can end in violence, and the effect on a community is strong.

To this:

If you enforce the law by prosecuting the employers then you force the Mexican illegal immigrants to commit crime in order to survive, backing them against the corner. This is not the solution.

Removing the incentive will not work? You believe that 1 illegal that cannot get work under the table = 1 criminal?! This is an outrageous claim, and I would like citations. There are other places one can move to, and you can commit crime in your home country. Either way, this is not something may just say and others will believe.

I hesitate to quote Wikipedia, but this is well sourced. Here is the link, and two relevant highlights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

Here is a bit which shows the poor enforcement in the workplace:

For decades, immigration authorities have alerted ("no-match-letters")[59] employers of mismatches between reported employees' Social Security cards and the actual names of the card holders. On September 1, 2007, a federal judge halted this practice of alerting employers of card mismatches.[60]

Illegal hiring has not been prosecuted aggressively in recent years: between 1999 and 2003, according to The Washington Post, “work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[61] Major employers of illegal immigrants have included:

Wal-Mart. In 2005, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle a federal investigation that found hundreds of illegal immigrants were hired by Wal-Mart's cleaning contractors.[62]
Swift & Co.. In December 2006, in the largest such crackdown in American history, U.S. federal immigration authorities raided Swift & Co. meat-processing plants in six U.S. states, arresting about 1,300 illegal immigrant employees.[63]
Tyson Foods. This company has also been accused of actively importing illegal labor for its chicken packing plants; however, the jury acquitted the company after evidence was presented that Tyson went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.[64]

According to Edmonton and Smith in The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, "it is difficult to draw any strong conclusions on the association between immigration and crime".[58] Cities with large immigrant populations showed larger reductions in property and violent crime than cities without large immigrant populations.[113] Almost all of what is known about immigration and crime is from information on those in prison. Incarceration rates do not necessarily reflect differences in current crime rates.[58] A few of the other reasons also cited for why the extent of illegal immigrants' criminal activities is unknown are as follows:

For many minor crimes, especially crimes involving juveniles, those who are apprehended are not arrested. Only a fraction of those who are arrested are ever brought to the courts for disposition.[58]
Many illegal immigrants who are apprehended by Border Patrol agents are voluntarily returned to their home countries and are not ordinarily tabulated in national crime statistics. If immigrants, whether illegal or legal, are apprehended entering the United States while committing a crime, they are usually charged under federal statutes and, if convicted, are sent to federal prisons. Throughout this entire process, immigrants may have a chance of deportation, or of sentencing that is different from that for a native-born person.[58]
We lack comprehensive information on whether arrested or jailed immigrants are illegal immigrants, nonimmigrants, or legal immigrants. Such information can be difficult to collect because immigrants may have a reason to provide false statements (if they reply that they are an illegal immigrant, they can be deported, for instance). The verification of the data is troublesome because it requires matching INS records with individuals who often lack documentation or present false documents.[58]
Noncitizens may have had fewer years residing in the United States than citizens, and thus less time in which to commit crimes and be apprehended.[58]
In 1999, law enforcement activities involving unauthorized immigrants in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas cost a combined total of more than $108 million. This cost did not include activities related to border enforcement. In San Diego County, the expense (over $50 million) was nine percent of the total county's budget for law enforcement that year.[114]

A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, found that, "cities with large immigrant populations showed larger reductions in property and violent crime than cities without large immigrant populations" but adds, "As with most studies, we do not have ideal data. This lack of data restricts the questions we will be able to answer. In particular, we cannot focus on the undocumented population explicitly".[115]

A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has found that while property-related crime rates have not been affected by increased immigration (both legal and illegal), in border counties there is a significant positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime, most likely due to extensive smuggling activity along the border.[116]

Another study, by the immigrant-advocacy group, Immigration Policy Center, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, found that large increases in illegal immigration do not result in a rise in crime[117]

On August 6, 2008, an audit done by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that 137 of the 637 jail inmates in the Lake County, Illinois jail were illegal immigrants. According to Lake County sheriff Mark Curran, illegal immigrants were charged with half of the 14 murders in the county.[118]

Quite telling. This is an unsolved question, and there is evidence that in areas that are turbulent there is violence. The issue of smuggling is an issue of an appetite for drugs on this side, and money and guns on the other. Smuggling is a crime indipendant of illegal immigration, and outside of this the numbers are not clear. How do you draw your absolute conclusions?

 

[cronxeh]

yeah, no. Its only 160 miles long and they have minefields. You try mining a border and see how many hippies protest

 

[skeptic2]

Better get a passport then !

Have any of the usual conspiracy enthusiasts noticed that US just conveniently created a cheap national ID card that fits in your wallet ?

I seems to me the Arizona Immigration Law creates a presumption of guilt and forces the people that are stopped to prove their innocence. It is the lack of evidence of innocence that results their arrest rather than evidence of guilt. Is this the direction we want our legal system to go?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I got a real kick out of the Congressional candidate who rode an elephant across the Rio Grande, followed by a mariachi band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diwJHN9gUrY

The only official concern was that the elephant might have ticks.

 

[Char. Limit]

Is a lack of racial and ethnic diversity assumed in this discussion? Is the AZ police population predominately white male heterosexual (AND biased)?

Well, in the U.S., it's commonly assumed that if you are the first three (white, male, and heterosexual), you are also the last (biased). Especially if you are white, male, heterosexual, and Christian.

But hey, we're the majority, so it's OK for us to be hated, right?... right?

No, it's not. But good luck telling people that.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Well, in the U.S., it's commonly assumed that if you are the first three (white, male, and heterosexual), you are also the last (biased). Especially if you are white, male, heterosexual, and Christian.

But hey, we're the majority, so it's OK for us to be hated, right?... right?

No, it's not. But good luck telling people that.

Evangelical white, male heterosexual Christians are very loud, like Islamic fundamentalists or any other fundamentalist group. They have political power, and they have painted that description with a broad brush. This is what happens when a group enjoys special treatment compared to others for centuries, and that structure begins to collapse. It is life, but it's also wrong to hate such people. Fear them perhaps, for their mindless conviction that they are right, and the rest of us are bound for hell, but not hate.

Oh yes, what is it about these evangelical pastors that they keep turning out to be gay, closeted, and hateful themselves? The Daily Show last night was hilarious with that "Family Research Council" man with a "renboy". I laughed so hard I had tears coming out of my eyes. If you are gay, be gay, don't hate yourself and others for you cannot handle this.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I got a real kick out of the Congressional candidate who rode an elephant across the Rio Grande, followed by a mariachi band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diwJHN9gUrY

The only official concern was that the elephant might have ticks.

Oh my lord! I find this funny, but I don't think I understand the motivation. I do understand fearing ticks however, they carry such terrible disease, and they bury their heads in your flesh to feed. Disgusting things. The Mariachi band (I had to look that up), I wonder if this was self-satire?!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh my lord! I find this funny, but I don't think I understand the motivation. I do understand fearing ticks however, they carry such terrible disease, and they bury their heads in your flesh to feed. Disgusting things. The Mariachi band (I had to look that up), I wonder if this was self-satire?!

The point was anyone can cross the border [including terrorists carrying nuclear materials, or an elephant]. Our border security is a joke. This is why I saw the so-called war on terrorism as a joke. We worry about no-fly lists and talk about surrending our Constitutional protections for safety, while millions of people enter the country illegally with no controls.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

The point was anyone can cross the border [including terrorists carrying nuclear materials, or an elephant]. Our border security is a joke.

I see, that is a very graphic demonstration all right.

 

[mheslep]

yeah, no. Its only 160 miles long and they have minefields. You try mining a border and see how many hippies protest

Yes Korea is different. They also speak Korean, but that's not relevant either to the issue of a physical border closing.

If you want to talk about the politics of the closing the border, talk about the politics. But don't conflate the political roadblocks with the technical, as it is ridiculous to say that the United States can not substantially, if not completely, stop the illegal alien flow at the border. The US already does so in San Diego and parts of Texas. It is a matter of will.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Yes Korea is different. They also speak Korean, but that's not relevant either to the issue of a physical border closing.

If you want to talk about the politics of the closing the border, talk about the politics. But don't conflate the political roadblocks with the technical, as it is ridiculous to say that the United States can not substantially, if not completely, stop the illegal alien flow at the border. The US already does so in San Diego and parts of Texas. It is a matter of will.

It's not worth it in my view, when cheaper and more effective means are available. Better the Arizona law than wasting billions on a human fence, I think. Remember also, that NK can overrun the positions of the DMZ if they choose, even though they would lose in the long haul. Same issue with India overrunning Pakistan at the LOC, and that has led in part to nuclear tensions. This is not a model to be admired.

 

[edward]

DHS tried a high tech virtual fence. Boeing wasted over a billion dollars before the project was declared a failure.



A lot has changed in the pst year. Smugglers are making money off of both people and drugs. They are now carrying weapons.

 

[mheslep]

DHS tried a high tech virtual fence. [...]

They should build a fence, fence. A 12-15' double fence is all that is needed.

http://vivirlatino.com/i/2008/09/border-fence.jpg

 

[IcedEcliptic]

DHS tried a high tech virtual fence. Boeing wasted over a billion dollars before the project was declared a failure.



A lot has changed in the pst year. Smugglers are making money off of both people and drugs. They are now carrying weapons.

Drugs for American appetites, and guns from the US. Smugglers meet a demand, and they do not create one very effectively. In history, fighting a war on smuggling and black markets fails, with far more draconian measures than the USA or Arizona would ever consider (Roman Decimation for instance). It is not fair to conflate illegal immigrants in general, with a criminal subset, or a these so called "mules" with people running the show. It is hard enough for Israel to keep Palestinians in line with a wall and an army, and the world is not in love with them for it. America stands for something better than partitioning, even if it is international and not intranational. If not Mexicans, then Columbians, if not Columbians, then Albanians, or Armenians, or Russians, or Italians, or Irish, and so forth. Where the demand exists for drugs, and money is to be be made, smuggling can only ever change hands.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

They should build a fence, fence. A 12-15' double fence is all that is needed.

http://vivirlatino.com/i/2008/09/border-fence.jpg

40-50 yards wide, two trenches, a road, fencing, all monitored, for 600+ miles to protect you from the scaaaary Mexicans? What a waste of money and resources, and a clever way to rapidly teach them how to build better tunnels, as in Korea and Israel.

 

[mgb_phys]

40-50 yards wide, two trenches, a road, fencing, all monitored, for 600+ miles to protect you from the scaaaary Mexicans?

Plus who is going to build it if you don't have any Mexicans?

You could always call in the experts, but it's going to be expensive paying Germans even at the current $:euro

 

[Meghan222]

You are not legally required to present ID to a police officer when ever asked. You are required to show a driver's license to a police officer if you are pulled over because you are operating an automobile and must show that you are licensed to do so.[/QUOTE]

Depends on the state. And most states if you are violating any laws they can ask you for identification. And that was my point, you have to be breaking a law. I don't know about you but I was taught that I should have it no matter what anyway. Kind of a just in case senerio.

 

[Meghan222]

Plus who is going to build it if you don't have any Mexicans?

You could always call in the experts, but it's going to be expensive paying Germans even at the current $:euro

ARE YOU F***ing kidding me? Who would build it? Lemme see how about the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of construction workers (legal) that are out of a job right now. Pretty sure they would be glad to do it. You are truly kidding yourself if you believe that illegals are doing jobs no one else would do. Our economy is in the pooper and I am 100% positive that LEGAL citizens would do any of those jobs. Have you ever watched the show dirty jobs? Are they all illegals?? Didn't think so.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Plus who is going to build it if you don't have any Mexicans?

You could always call in the experts, but it's going to be expensive paying Germans even at the current $:euro

Heh, I laughed at this, thank you. Maybe if we wait for the euro to hit bumpier roads, we could have the Germans do their magic and build maglev and high speed wheel-on-track rail for the US! Now THAT is a smart investment.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

ARE YOU F***ing kidding me? Who would build it? Lemme see how about the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of construction workers (legal) that are out of a job right now. Pretty sure they would be glad to do it. You are truly kidding yourself if you believe that illegals are doing jobs no one else would do. Our economy is in the pooper and I am 100% positive that LEGAL citizens would do any of those jobs. Have you ever watched the show dirty jobs? Are they all illegals?? Didn't think so.

I think he was joking, angry man.

 

[Meghan222]

Drugs for American appetites, and guns from the US. Smugglers meet a demand, and they do not create one very effectively. In history, fighting a war on smuggling and black markets fails, with far more draconian measures than the USA or Arizona would ever consider (Roman Decimation for instance). It is not fair to conflate illegal immigrants in general, with a criminal subset, or a these so called "mules" with people running the show. It is hard enough for Israel to keep Palestinians in line with a wall and an army, and the world is not in love with them for it. America stands for something better than partitioning, even if it is international and not intranational. If not Mexicans, then Columbians, if not Columbians, then Albanians, or Armenians, or Russians, or Italians, or Irish, and so forth. Where the demand exists for drugs, and money is to be be made, smuggling can only ever change hands.

Maybe though if we make it harder, uphold our current laws, and have a president that doesn't appologize for us, maybe then it will die down a bit. Besides if they have a harder time getting across, and I hate to say this, they happen to die (smugglers I mean not people coming here for work) then it's called weeding out the herd. Sorry if that sounds cold, but you don't live here do you? See it everyday like I do.

 

[Meghan222]

I think he was joking, angry man.

I hope so. And I am an angry chick not a dude. Look this is an issue that I take pretty personally (obviously) both because my family legally immigrated here from puerto rico, and illegals make it hard on us all, and because I have to see it everyday. It's pretty bad here. And no one seems to get that.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Maybe though if we make it harder, uphold our current laws, and have a president that doesn't appologize for us, maybe then it will die down a bit. Besides if they have a harder time getting across, and I hate to say this, they happen to die (smugglers I mean not people coming here for work) then it's called weeding out the herd. Sorry if that sounds cold, but you don't live here do you? See it everyday like I do.

I live "here" now, and am a naturalized citizen, but you are right that I am not from the same continent. I have seen this thing in other countries however, it is not so dissimilar. I do not know that your president apologizes for you, and he is very popular around the world, compared to the last one who was fairly despised. I grant that popularity is not a measure of success or doing the right thing, but I don't see how "thinning the herd" leads to anything but a stronger herd! That's the point of the practice, yes? My point is in line with this, that any people who still make the passage will be the hard-cases.

 

[Meghan222]

I live "here" now, and am a naturalized citizen, but you are right that I am not from the same continent. I have seen this thing in other countries however, it is not so dissimilar. I do not know that your president apologizes for you, and he is very popular around the world, compared to the last one who was fairly despised. I grant that popularity is not a measure of success or doing the right thing, but I don't see how "thinning the herd" leads to anything but a stronger herd! That's the point of the practice, yes? My point is in line with this, that any people who still make the passage will be the hard-cases.

You misunderstood me on two counts. First I meant weeding out the herd of smugglers. And even with a bigger herd, they would still be weeded out. Furthermore a bigger herd is easier to spot. And on the second point is that here was in reference to Arizona. I live HERE. Where the bill is currently an issue. And HERE is a huge issue with crime. And hate bush all you want but the fact of the matter is that he kept us a heck of a lot safer after 9-11. Look how many attacks have happened since Obama. Fort Hood, time square ect ect.

 

[BobG]

Evangelical white, male heterosexual Christians are very loud, like Islamic fundamentalists or any other fundamentalist group. They have political power, and they have painted that description with a broad brush. This is what happens when a group enjoys special treatment compared to others for centuries, and that structure begins to collapse. It is life, but it's also wrong to hate such people. Fear them perhaps, for their mindless conviction that they are right, and the rest of us are bound for hell, but not hate.

Oh yes, what is it about these evangelical pastors that they keep turning out to be gay, closeted, and hateful themselves? The Daily Show last night was hilarious with that "Family Research Council" man with a "renboy". I laughed so hard I had tears coming out of my eyes. If you are gay, be gay, don't hate yourself and others for you cannot handle this.

Fundamentalists have a mindless conviction that the rest of us are bound for hell, but at least they don't interfere in our progress.

Evangelicals range from very conservative (perhaps just a step this side of fundamentalist) to moderate, since they are very intent on finding a way to interact with the rest of the populace, which is the only way a religion can win converts.

The compromises Evangelicals made a century ago in splitting with fundamentalists have been successful in growing their religion and in accumulating political power - but the political power part has really only built up steam since the 50's (the Billy Graham era and his successors). Granted, that's our entire lives for most of us, but it's not centuries.

Or maybe that's splitting hairs since other religious groups at various times have at least been influential enough to add a little momentum to a cause even if not powerful enough to drive a cause. Baptists supporting separation of church and state (except their version was to eliminate preferential treatment for a specific religion; not to abolish Christian influence on government); religious groups providing a lot of fire to both the abolitionist movement and to the prohibitionist movement; etc.

A large majority of Evangelicals are social conservatives, to the point it would be fair to say the religion has an anti-gay bent to it.

All of the preceding points are fair criticisms in another thread, but have little to do with anti-Hispanic sentiment or racism in general, and Evangelicism is not racist by ideology (although geographic correlations of racism probably cut just as strongly through Evangelical churches as the rest of the region their congregations happen to be in (i.e. - an Evangelical church in a region with little racism would be much more likely to speak out against racism than a church in a region with a lot of racism).

All in all, your post looks like a random shot against religion just for the heck of it.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Fundamentalists have a mindless conviction that the rest of us are bound for hell, but at least they don't interfere in our progress.
<snip>

I'm going to stop you right there, because the first glaring issue is: fetal stem cell research. Explain to me again how they don't interfere in our progress.

 

[Char. Limit]

You misunderstood me on two counts. First I meant weeding out the herd of smugglers. And even with a bigger herd, they would still be weeded out. Furthermore a bigger herd is easier to spot. And on the second point is that here was in reference to Arizona. I live HERE. Where the bill is currently an issue. And HERE is a huge issue with crime. And hate bush all you want but the fact of the matter is that he kept us a heck of a lot safer after 9-11. Look how many attacks have happened since Obama. Fort Hood, time square ect ect.

I don't hate Bush, even though I disagree with some of his policies. I don't know the man personally, so I can't really hate him. You, however, seem to hate Obama. Why don't you tell us the truth... You disagree with his policy, rather than hating him for things beyond his control, like domestic terrorist attacks?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I don't hate Bush, even though I disagree with some of his policies. I don't know the man personally, so I can't really hate him. You, however, seem to hate Obama. Why don't you tell us the truth... You disagree with his policy, rather than hating him for things beyond his control, like domestic terrorist attacks?

I was afraid of Bush, but didn't hate him. I think I hated Dick Cheney and Karl Rove however. I don't really love or hate politicians, they are more alike than not.

 

[BobG]

Why do you associate immigrant with drunk driver...that sound like prejudice!

No one associates immigrants with drunk drivers.

They associate random stops of innocent people with sobriety check points - one instance where random stops of innocent people justified by apprehending a guilty few managed to hold up in the USSC. It's the innocent people stopped that have the similarity - not the guilty, since the guilty have committed different crimes from each other.

(As also mentioned, it's an imperfect comparison since in the overwhelming majority of the stops, the "approved" stops didn't even include checking the driver license or registration, let alone testing random drivers for sobriety.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Depends on the state. And most states if you are violating any laws they can ask you for identification. And that was my point, you have to be breaking a law. I don't know about you but I was taught that I should have it no matter what anyway. Kind of a just in case senerio.

It does not depend on the state. According to the US Supreme Court you are not required to present ID to an officer unless they have "probable cause". The law we are discussing here specifically seeks to reduce the requirement on officers, in the case of checking citizenship, to "reasonable suspicion" which according to the USSC does not allow for a requirement to produce ID. As far as the constitution is concerned if an officer wishes to check your citizenship status (investigate your "papers") they must have "probable cause".

The issue here is not protecting illegal immigrants it is criticism of a blatantly unconstitutional law. How do you feel about the reduction of constitutional protections? What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

 

[cronxeh]

What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

Funny you mentioned that. I believe with the new health care legislation, this task might be up to Department of Health and Human Services law enforcement branch. These guys are feds with guns and have broad powers of enforcement

 

[CRGreathouse]

Funny you mentioned that. I believe with the new health care legislation, this task might be up to Department of Health and Human Services law enforcement branch. These guys are feds with guns and have broad powers of enforcement

If you have an opportunity at some point to give a citation, feel free -- I'd like to read up on this.

 

[mheslep]

40-50 yards wide, two trenches, a road, fencing, all monitored, for 600+ miles to protect you from the scaaaary Mexicans?

That's a fairly smug insult to the people on the border having to deal with the problem. Obviously that doesn't concern you.

What a waste of money and resources, and a clever way to rapidly teach them how to build better tunnels, as in Korea and Israel.

One million people per year won't go through rat hole tunnels.

 

[Meghan222]

I don't hate Bush, even though I disagree with some of his policies. I don't know the man personally, so I can't really hate him. You, however, seem to hate Obama. Why don't you tell us the truth... You disagree with his policy, rather than hating him for things beyond his control, like domestic terrorist attacks?

No you are right, I HATE Obama, it has nothing to do with his color, although that will be the conclusion a lot will jump to. I hate him for two reasons, being a liar with no consiquences, and being an arrogant man who thinks he is God. And he does. In fact, when we were both, Obama and I, living in Chicago, he made a joke, much like his "I wasn't born in a manger" crap. His joke was that he was Jesus here to save the world. He grew in popularity after that. He maintains it was a joke, but 90% of all jokes are based on some fact. He knows we know he's not God, but he thinks he is. And yes to top it off I HATE his policy. This is a fantasic country. Better than any other nation ever. He wants a dictatorship, with the illusion of demacracy. But we were given a republic. "What have you given us sir." A man to Benjamin Franklin. "A republic, if you can keep it." He replied. I want my country back! And furthermore, he does have some control over domestic terrorism. If he would stop appoligizing for us, and start inforcing our current laws, instead of knocking down leaders who deserve repect, I.E. officers, military ect ect. Then maybe there would be less attacks. You may not like bush but he kept us safe. I am so sick of talking to people who are ignorant on both sides. They know one side of each arguement, so they can argue their side, but they don't investigate their own. Why is that? Ignorance is bliss? I didn't agree with Bush 100% of the time, but by comparrison, Bush was the best ever, in comparison to Obama. Wanna argue with that, look at the facts.

 

[Meghan222]

It does not depend on the state. According to the US Supreme Court you are not required to present ID to an officer unless they have "probable cause". The law we are discussing here specifically seeks to reduce the requirement on officers, in the case of checking citizenship, to "reasonable suspicion" which according to the USSC does not allow for a requirement to produce ID. As far as the constitution is concerned if an officer wishes to check your citizenship status (investigate your "papers") they must have "probable cause".

The issue here is not protecting illegal immigrants it is criticism of a blatantly unconstitutional law. How do you feel about the reduction of constitutional protections? What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

Um taking that out of context. Yeah I also said that IF PULLED OVER OR OTHERWISE DETAINED! That would constitute probable cause!

 

[Meghan222]

It does not depend on the state. According to the US Supreme Court you are not required to present ID to an officer unless they have "probable cause". The law we are discussing here specifically seeks to reduce the requirement on officers, in the case of checking citizenship, to "reasonable suspicion" which according to the USSC does not allow for a requirement to produce ID. As far as the constitution is concerned if an officer wishes to check your citizenship status (investigate your "papers") they must have "probable cause".

The issue here is not protecting illegal immigrants it is criticism of a blatantly unconstitutional law. How do you feel about the reduction of constitutional protections? What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

Oh and one more thing, um I live in Arizona, I ACTUALLY read the bill thank you, and you have to be detained for SOME VIOLATION OF THE LAW! So they were already breaking the law in some form. Furthermore if I had to carry around any paperwork, which eventually you will have to carry around proof of health insurance, THANK YOU OBAMA, I would rather do so, to prove I am a legal citizen. How many legals do you know? And how many illegals? I know quite a few on both, and frankly legals want this, Arizona wants this, and illegals know they have to take responsiblity. If you are driving without insurance on your car, do you speed?? No, you are careful not to break laws so you aren't in trouble. I have no qualms against illegals, but they are illegal. Meaning they broke a law. I think we need to put them at the back of the line of citizenship if they are here "for work" and then if they have broken any laws other than coming here, they get deported. Or imprisoned. Which ever.

 

[Meghan222]

I'm going to stop you right there, because the first glaring issue is: fetal stem cell research. Explain to me again how they don't interfere in our progress.

And on stem cell research, you know for a guy that will argue with everyone, and thus far it looks like you do, you are certainly not very versed in the things you claim to know. You watch a lot of msnbc do you? Cause it certainly seems that way. They are not against stem cell research. They are against the way it is done. Right now it is done by creating beings, or aborted babies, then using them for research. However did you know that they can use imbilical cords, and it has much more than either a dead baby or a dead being would ever produce. Here's a thought, if you have ever had a kid you know they offer to hold a portion of the imbilical cord so if your child gets sick or something they can reproduce the cells to help the child get better. But it's like $5000 or something like that to do. Why did no one else think of this, how about we (as a country) offer to hold portions of it for free in exchange for using the rest for research. I can't see any objections to that. And no one dies for it. It's funny the argument is that stem cell research saves lives, but no one says, by taking them.

 

[BobG]

I got a real kick out of the Congressional candidate who rode an elephant across the Rio Grande, followed by a mariachi band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diwJHN9gUrY

The only official concern was that the elephant might have ticks.

If Bhakta's political career falls through, I think we've finally found the replacement for Geraldo Rivera. Chasing the illegal immigrant brings back memories of Geraldo trying to conduct an interview with a judge's "hitman" while chasing him through the streets of Akron, OH.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Oh and one more thing, um I live in Arizona, I ACTUALLY read the bill thank you, and you have to be detained for SOME VIOLATION OF THE LAW! So they were already breaking the law in some form.

I read the bill too, and I do not even live there.

a) You are wrong, the bill S.B.1070 did not state that you had to be detained or arrested. Just a few posts back I linked you an article that showed the language of the law was clarified in a follow-on bill (ie a bill separate and following after the original) for that exact reason.

b) Detained does not mean you broke the law. Detained means that the officer has some "reasonable suspicion" that you may have broken the law. "Reasonable suspicion" is less than "probable cause". Now, pay attention this time please, the law specifically states that it allows officers to check citizenship status based on "reasonable suspicion". As I stated in the post which you were here responding to, this law is specifically attempting to loosen the restrictions on officers from requiring "probable cause" (which is required according to the highest court of this "best nation ever") to only requiring "reasonable suspicion", which according to the highest court in the bestest nation ever would be illegal.

Just in case now, here is a copy of the original bill..
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Here is the article I already cited for you about the follow-on...
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Governor-signs-several-changes-to-Arizona/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx

And here is a short overview of court decisions regarding "reasonable suspicion" which I already cited earlier on in this thread...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/

 

[IcedEcliptic]

If you have an opportunity at some point to give a citation, feel free -- I'd like to read up on this.

He has not cited his previous series of statements, so I do not expect he will these.

That's a fairly smug insult to the people on the border having to deal with the problem. Obviously that doesn't concern you.

One million people per year won't go through rat hole tunnels.

I thought the smug insult would be building a fence over the entire southern border.

 

[BobG]

40-50 yards wide, two trenches, a road, fencing, all monitored, for 600+ miles to protect you from the scaaaary Mexicans? What a waste of money and resources, and a clever way to rapidly teach them how to build better tunnels, as in Korea and Israel.

That's a fairly smug insult to the people on the border having to deal with the problem. Obviously that doesn't concern you.

One million people per year won't go through rat hole tunnels.

A solution that reduces the flow is reasonable.

Additionally, is building a fence really more expensive than other options? A fence would cost $4 - 8 billion dollars, according to Michael Chertoff a few years ago. The Social Security Administration cracking down on fake Social Security Numbers would cost about $7 billion dollars a year.

Of course, if the fence were successful, "extra" income to the SSA would slow it's increases and possibly even decline if combined to apprehend illegal immigrants currently in the country. It would still have less impact than a cold turkey withdrawal from Social Security taxes paid to bogus SSNs.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

A solution that reduces the flow is reasonable.

Additionally, is building a fence really more expensive than other options? A fence would cost $4 - 8 billion dollars, according to Michael Chertoff a few years ago. The Social Security Administration cracking down on fake Social Security Numbers would cost about $7 billion dollars a year.

Of course, if the fence were successful, "extra" income to the SSA would slow it's increases and possibly even decline if combined to apprehend illegal immigrants currently in the country. It would still have less impact than a cold turkey withdrawal from Social Security taxes paid to bogus SSNs.

Cracking down on employers, once again, seems the cheapest and most effective method. One must check SSN's for many reasons, so that cost cannot be made to disappear, even if not a single person crosses that border. Given that SS is a doomed slush-fund anyway, I am not moved by the argument. I should add that the fence would require constant checking, patrols, and maintenance, repair, along with increased tunneling. This would slow the flow, as you say, but the cost of building the fence would be the beginning.

 

[cristo]

Locked, pending moderation.

 

[Josh111]

Arizona Law - What makes one removable from the US?

I have read this "controversial law" and have trouble finding any racist language in it. However, there is one thing I wondered about, Article 8 section E:

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

If it is already a offense to be in the US illegally. what is a offense that makes one removable from the US?

Also don't police already have the right to arrest someone who is a citizen of this country as a suspect? (The " PROBABLE CAUSE" SECTION ABOVE)