Arizona immigration law goes into effect......

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

What's the impact of these "facts" (estimates, really) on the argument? There's millions of illegal immigrants here. Everybody agrees with that. And there's millions of "estimated" successful border crossings + arrests near the border every year. We'll never be able to nail the number down - but is your point that there's not a lot of illegal immigration, so we don't need to pay any attention to it?

No other country has our mindset when it comes to immigration. It's really crazy. Illegal immigration is not OK.

I agree with Molson here. This is one of the issues where I "cross the aisle" in the sense that I become less liberal about it.

[Abe Sargent]

This is one of those issues where I cross the aisle and become massively more liberal.

I could relate experiences again and again about how immigration is great for America, and if we didn;t have the jobs they wouldn't come, etc, etc, etc. However, i think we should issue amnesty for all current illegals, increase the cap for immigrants annually significantly (like to 2.5 or 3 million) and create incentive programs for immigrants to relocate to areas outside of traditional immigration areas in order to spread them to new areas that could really use the influx of workers.

For example, if you knew you could legally immigrate to America because we increased our legal ranks significantly, but had to relocate to some area outside of New York city, the border states, etc, but you would be compeltely on track to being a citizen with health care, school, benefits, no worries about dodging the law, but you had to relocate to one of the 35 or so states that need you, I think many would jump at that chance. So go move to Boise or Iowa or Kentucky or Toledo and so forth. Get some incentives, like relocation paid free for any family elsehwere inteh states, or a person finder program that will locate your familiy in the states or in MExico and allow you to send money to them, etc.

You just have to change teh system. This is basic Systems Theory in action. We have created a major economic incentive for immigrants, both legally and so much that people ar ewilling to risk a lot to cross and be here illegally despite the massive problems and costs associated with that, so just change the system to welcome them with open arms.

I don;t get why a nation a rich as America can;t allow a few extra people in the country each year and has to be such a dick with immigration, when we are supposed to be that Light on a Hill to everyone.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I don;t get why a nation a rich as America can;t allow a few extra people in the country each year and has to be such a dick with immigration, when we are supposed to be that Light on a Hill to everyone.

America can barely support the folks we have.

I'd be all for some sort of legal migrant worker process as plenty of the jobs they take legal citizens don't want, but I don't know that we're set up for a massive population boom beyond what we are already doing internally. The world as a whole could really use a slowdown on population growth.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And according to that table, we've arrested everyone who crossed the border twice

So clearly there's no problem with actual immigration enforcement thus there's no need for a bill to give the police additional powers.

Originally Posted by molson

What's the impact of these "facts" (estimates, really) on the argument? There's millions of illegal immigrants here. Everybody agrees with that. And there's millions of "estimated" successful border crossings + arrests near the border every year. We'll never be able to nail the number down - but is your point that there's not a lot of illegal immigration, so we don't need to pay any attention to it?

There's definitely a difference in the level impact of hundreds of thousands of people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally each year (fact) and millions of people doing it (fiction).

Now, it may well be that the difference isn't great enough to make this law good in your fictional scenario but bad in the real world scenario, but my point was that your use of hyperbole diminishes the standing of your argument greatly.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Sweden, aside from trying to conflate this thread's argument with an argument from another thread. I'd recommend sticking to one argument at a time, to be honest, but that's just me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I don;t get why a nation a rich as America can;t allow a few extra people in the country each year and has to be such a dick with immigration, when we are supposed to be that Light on a Hill to everyone.

We allow a shitload of people in the country every year. And we largely turn a blind eye to anyone else lucky enough to get here. We have among the most liberal immigration policies in the world.

Do you really think mass, immigration of unskilled people is good for America? I don't get that at all. I'm all for tripling the number of legal immigrants allowed each year, streamline the process, make an easier pathway to citizenships, but lets target the people, from every country, who can contribute and reach their potential here, not just anyone desperate enough to risk their lives to get here.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So clearly there's no problem with actual immigration enforcement thus there's no need for a bill to give the police additional powers.



There's definitely a difference in the level impact of hundreds of thousands of people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally each year (fact) and millions of people doing it (fiction).

Now, it may well be that the difference isn't great enough to make this law good in your fictional scenario but bad in the real world scenario, but my point was that your use of hyperbole diminishes the standing of your argument greatly.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Sweden, aside from trying to conflate this thread's argument with an argument from another thread. I'd recommend sticking to one argument at a time, to be honest, but that's just me.

My opinion is that it's millions....My point about Sweden is just that we're the only country where a good chunk of the people welcome mass, unskilled, undocumented immigration. Other, far more liberal countries deal with this problem, (and it is a problem), much more harshly.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'd be all for some sort of legal migrant worker process as plenty of the jobs they take legal citizens don't want, but I don't know that we're set up for a massive population boom beyond what we are already doing internally.

This is basically my view as well. There's a huge economic incentive for people to come to America legally and illegally to work, and there's a huge number of jobs that need to be filled (most of the agriculture industry for example) that aren't being filled by actual Americans.

Better to look reality in the face and work out a good solution to it rather than fight against the tide. But since we clearly can't just make everyone a citizen and continue to function as we've been functioning, some sort of guest/migrant worker program would seem a better solution.

[molson]

Dola-

If this is about fairness - that Mexicans deserve a shot here or whatever, why shouldn't we be fair to all the struggling people, many of them struggling to a much greater degree, who aren't fortunate enough to live in a country that shares a huge border in the U.S? Why don't we be fair about it and facilitate immigration for anyone, regardless of their ability to contribute, or where they are on the planet? Africa, Southeast Asia, Russia - I'm sure millions would love to jump on a boat and come over here, no questions asked.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

My opinion is that it's millions

So you know better than the GAO? I'm impressed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So you know better than the GAO? I'm impressed.

Those are estimates. There's other estimates out there. Even the GAO numbers seems to indicate millions crossing the borders every year ("estimated" successful crossings + arrests near the border, presumably of people who recently crossed). They're undocumented. That's the whole point. Nobody has any idea how many there are.

[flere-imsaho]

Let's see some of those other estimates, then.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Let's see some of those other estimates, then.

As much as I hate to do Google research on a message board demand, I will dig those up at some point.

My guess is the number is around 2 million/year (including repeat entries from Mexico, many make the journey multiple times, I know that the El Paso - Southern Idaho illegal immigration "underground railroad" - for a lack of a better term - is extremely efficient). It's a total guess, vaguely based on things I've read and my own personal experience with the government's ability and methods of counting these people. But if the number turns out to be closer to 500,000, which would shock me, it wouldn't change my opinion on anything. It's still a crime. It's still damaging to the country. It's still a huge issue in certain communities in the U.S.

[flere-imsaho]

And you don't feel the GAO would have also taken a lot of that into account when developing their estimates?

[flere-imsaho]

No offense, molson, but on one hand I've got the GAO, and on the other I've got you. Now, unless you do this for a living, I'm gonna have to go with the GAO's estimate, since that's exactly what they do for a living.

It's like talking about polls and choosing between Nate Silver and MBBF, though considerably less egregious, of course.

[DaddyTorgo]

Legal Immigration = Yes
Illegal Immigration = No

Path to Citizenship for existing Illegal Immigrants = Yes
Zero-tolerance (excepting amnesty and other previously defined cases) after that = Yes
Migrant or Guest-worker policy = Yes

[stevew]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp - actually on second thought, have a college degree of GTFO. - The new message on the Statue of Liberty!


More seriously, the truth is, no other Western nation has the same situation as we do with a near-Third World nation on our border. So, other nations immigration policies are kinda irrelevant to be perfectly honest because it's a question of geography, not policy at that moment.

That doesn't even get into the fact that even if you could closed the borders tomorrow, you simply can't deport 10 million people. It's a logistical impossibility, without even getting into the questions of what to do with kids who are citizens because they were born here, but their parents are undocumented, kids who have been here since they were toddlers, mixed families of citizens and undocumenteds, etc.

Of course, the most ironic thing is conservatives backing an idea that they nailed totalitarian countries for having during the Cold War and WWII, "have your papers or go to jail!"

Can we deport you to some other message board? Please?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Legal Immigration = Yes
Illegal Immigration = No

Path to Citizenship for existing Illegal Immigrants = Yes
Zero-tolerance (excepting amnesty and other previously defined cases) after that = Yes
Migrant or Guest-worker policy = Yes

Didn't this already happen once (and now we're right back to where we started)?

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SI

[Abe Sargent]

Considering the unethical nature of the Mexican-American War and the land we forced from them, I can;t help but think our modern day immigration problem with mexico is karma on a global level.

[Abe Sargent]

Also remember that Mexico lost Texas because of rampant illegal immigration by Americans into Texas.

Again, karma

[Chief Rum]

lol, really, Abe? Done talking facts, let's bring in karma? Wow...this is why I don't come into threads like these anymore, you get stuff like this.

[Abe Sargent]

I just think it's funny to point out that we got their territory, in part, due to illegal immigration on our part. I don;t actually beleive in karma, so I am using it to demonstrate a point, that the wheel turns and the pendulum swings.

[larrymcg421]

It seems like the discussion has strayed from the issue at hand. You can be against illegal immigration but also against this stupid law.

I'm not surprised the police chiefs are against this. The police chief was against the law that was passed in Prince William, VA. They eventually repealed that law and I suspect Arizona will do the same. The question is how many legal immigrants or natural born Hispanics will be fucked over until that happens.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I just think it's funny to point out that we got their territory, in part, due to illegal immigration on our part. I don;t actually beleive in karma, so I am using it to demonstrate a point, that the wheel turns and the pendulum swings.

Well, okay, if you're just tossing out there as a "funny twist" to the story, I can see that.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This is basically my view as well.

One of the reasons I love this board so much is flere and I usually are complete polar opposites on why things are happening / have happened, but usually agree 100% on what to do about them

Well, if we ignore invading Iraq. But that's just the exception that proves the rule.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I just think it's funny to point out that we got their territory, in part, due to illegal immigration on our part. I don;t actually beleive in karma, so I am using it to demonstrate a point, that the wheel turns and the pendulum swings.

And Texas is still not sure why they aren't their own country...

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Legal Immigration = Yes
Illegal Immigration = No

Path to Citizenship for existing Illegal Immigrants = Yes
Zero-tolerance (excepting amnesty and other previously defined cases) after that = Yes
Migrant or Guest-worker policy = Yes

DaddyTorgo and I agree on something.

Now we can all go home.

[Drake]

Re: Mexican-American War Karma

Clearly, then, our mistake was not handling Mexico the way we handled Native Americans.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Path to Citizenship for existing Illegal Immigrants = Yes

Not just no but Hell No.

1st time caught = deport
2nd time caught = airdropped back to wherever you came from without a parachute

That's all the leniency I've got on the subject & even that's a pretty steep concession frankly.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not just no but Hell No.

1st time caught = deport
2nd time caught = airdropped back to wherever you came from without a parachute

That's all the leniency I've got on the subject & even that's a pretty steep concession frankly.

you can't deport everyone who's here illegally currently. as much as even i might like to (and i would), it's not feasible. it would cost far too much money. it's a pipe dream...it's not practical, as much as maybe it's what we should do. so you can go on and on about how it's what you want to do, but it's not a workable solution.

that's where you draw a line in the sand and say "before this date...okay. after this date...no way." and put the people who are here now on a path to citizenship, get them paying taxes, etc.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

too

Also, I feel I've been making a better effort at being reasonable the past two years or so. Well, except for Jon. But Jon's an outlier.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by stevew

Can we deport you to some other message board? Please?

We already did once, and he has again crossed the border.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's like talking about polls and choosing between Nate Silver and MBBF.

You don't have to be so insulting. I realize that Nate's opinion doesn't hold much weight here, but you don't have to drag ME down to that level.

I'm somewhat impressed at the powder keg I've lit here. I'm honestly shocked at how many people think it's OK for illegal immigration to continue at its current level. There's nothing about illegal immigration that's OK. These kinds of heavy-handed state laws are long overdue IMO.

[JPhillips]

Just wait until towns/cities in AZ start being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for failing to enforce immigration laws sufficiently. Every small town in AZ now faces bankruptcy unless they devote enough resources to immigration enforcement to satisfy the Minutemen.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You don't have to be so insulting. I realize that Nate's opinion doesn't hold much weight here, but you don't have to drag ME down to that level.

You're a tough guy, I know you can handle it.

I'm honestly shocked at how many people think it's OK for illegal immigration to continue at its current level.

Thinking this bill is dumb does not equal support for illegal immigration. How are you not getting this?

I mean, using your same logic, by not supporting HCR, you're OK with people dying due to a lack of coverage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it would cost far too much money.

I agree insofar that there are cheaper solutions (a .556 round costs less than $1 per) but that's the one that's probably an easier p.r. sell.

But afaic there is no cost too high to remove these fucking criminals from the US once and for all. They've shown themselves unwilling to follow even the most basic law of the land -- by virtue of their illegal entry they are just as criminal as a common thief -- they're deserving of no quarter and damned sure not deserving of any reward.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I agree insofar that there are cheaper solutions (a .556 round costs less than $1 per) but that's the one that's probably an easier p.r. sell.

But afaic there is no cost too high to remove these fucking criminals from the US once and for all. They've shown themselves unwilling to follow even the most basic law of the land -- by virtue of their illegal entry they are just as criminal as a common thief -- they're deserving of no quarter and damned sure not deserving of any reward.

Really? No cost too high? So you're willing to have an additional federal tax (income, sales, whatever) levied on you if it was carved out and dedicated solely to deporting illegal immigrants?

And you realize there'd have to be government bureaucracy created to do all this, and that would cost money.

I ask not because I want to demonize you for the morality of it (fwiw if it was budget-neutral i'd be okay with it), but because I can't believe you'd be willing to suffer the taxes and the additional expansion of government necessary.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You don't have to be so insulting. I realize that Nate's opinion doesn't hold much weight here, but you don't have to drag ME down to that level.

I'm somewhat impressed at the powder keg I've lit here. I'm honestly shocked at how many people think it's OK for illegal immigration to continue at its current level. There's nothing about illegal immigration that's OK. These kinds of heavy-handed state laws are long overdue IMO.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Official 2009-10 College Basketball Thread

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Thinking this bill is dumb does not equal support for illegal immigration. How are you not getting this?

I mean, using your same logic, by not supporting HCR, you're OK with people dying due to a lack of coverage.

That wasn't what I was implying. I've seen a few posts in this thread literally saying that illegal immigration, in its current form, is OK. Obviously, you're not one that agrees with that assessment.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really? No cost too high? So you're willing to have an additional federal tax (income, sales, whatever) levied on you if it was carved out and dedicated solely to deporting illegal immigrants?

And you realize there'd have to be government bureaucracy created to do all this, and that would cost money.

I ask not because I want to demonize you for the morality of it (fwiw if it was budget-neutral i'd be okay with it), but because I can't believe you'd be willing to suffer the taxes and the additional expansion of government necessary.

Obviously I'd strongly prefer that we eliminate unnecessary/unwarranted/unconstitutional governmental spending in lieu of raising taxes. But the security of the nation's borders does seem to be a legitimate responsibility of the federal government, in spite of the abysmal performance of said government in that role to date. Indeed it's the abdication of that responsibility which leads to the existence of this thread.

That said however, this is one of the very few purposes for which I would register no complaint on the most basic level regarding a tax increase (i.e. taken in isolation, misappropriated spending not withstanding, I am not in philosophical conflict with paying the cost of such a vital & core function of the federal government).

[molson]

I was thinking and reading more about this and I had missed the obvious constitutional question here - can a state pass immigration laws? They probably can't.

That's the only thing this legislation does, really. Makes illegal immigration a state crime. It doesn't give officers any more power to investigate/enforce that crime v. any other crime. But the whole thing gets into international issues, which states are not permitted to delve into.

So this is really a political move, I think, to bring this issue to the forefront of conciousness, again. Which is always a good move, I think, because in the end, illegal immigration isn't popular.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I've seen a few posts in this thread literally saying that illegal immigration, in its current form, is OK.

Really? Who?

I just re-read the thread and I can't find a single person who is OK with illegal immigration in its current form. Even Abe, who would give all current illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, would like to see considerable changes to the current situation.

And certainly no one in this thread has "literally" said that illegal immigration, in its current form, is OK.

And no, I don't have anybody on ignore.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Really? Who?

I just re-read the thread and I can't find a single person who is OK with illegal immigration in its current form. Even Abe, who would give all current illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, would like to see considerable changes to the current situation.

And certainly no one in this thread has "literally" said that illegal immigration, in its current form, is OK.

And no, I don't have anybody on ignore.

You may be right. I may be reading more into their stances than is actually there. It's a fair point.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I was thinking and reading more about this and I had missed the obvious constitutional question here - can a state pass immigration laws? They probably can't.

That's the only thing this legislation does, really. Makes illegal immigration a state crime. It doesn't give officers any more power to investigate/enforce that crime v. any other crime. But the whole thing gets into international issues, which states are not permitted to delve into.

So this is really a political move, I think, to bring this issue to the forefront of conciousness, again. Which is always a good move, I think, because in the end, illegal immigration isn't popular.

It does more than that. It requires people to have immigration papers or be charged with a misdemeanor and allows citizens to sue municipalities or the state for failing to fully enforce immigration laws.

[SportsDino]

I'm not at the point of shooting people perhaps, but I actually agree with Jon. Border security is one of the common sense functions of the federal government.

Given the level and cost of services we try to offer to all citizens here, I think its valid to slow down illegal immigration. They are criminals, there is a process if it doesn't work for them, then they are free to risk the consequences (which I think should be more severe).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It does more than that. It requires people to have immigration papers or be charged with a misdemeanor and allows citizens to sue municipalities or the state for failing to fully enforce immigration laws.

Which remains woefully inadequate, given the utter failure of the federal government to live up to its obligations, but it's a step in the right direction.

Rather than suing, I'd prefer to have seen the measure add actual teeth, and criminalize the abdication of these responsibilities by state & municipal officials but apparently we have to crawl before we can walk.

[flere-imsaho]

The abdication of the responsibilities of elected officials is going to be very subjective, though, Jon. I understand, and even somewhat agree with the intent, but it seems an invitation to a huge amount of litigation.

[JPhillips]

There's still only X number of man hours for the police. How do you propose making sure that immigration is enforced tightly enough to stop lawsuits while still covering all the current aspects of police work? Imagine if cities could be sued if they failed to adequately stop speeding or theft. It's just going to lead to a ton of frivolous lawsuits that will take more money out of city governments.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Obviously I'd strongly prefer that we eliminate unnecessary/unwarranted/unconstitutional governmental spending in lieu of raising taxes. But the security of the nation's borders does seem to be a legitimate responsibility of the federal government, in spite of the abysmal performance of said government in that role to date. Indeed it's the abdication of that responsibility which leads to the existence of this thread.

That said however, this is one of the very few purposes for which I would register no complaint on the most basic level regarding a tax increase (i.e. taken in isolation, misappropriated spending not withstanding, I am not in philosophical conflict with paying the cost of such a vital & core function of the federal government).

Interesting...and cool. As always - a pleasure having a civil discourse with you.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It does more than that. It requires people to have immigration papers or be charged with a misdemeanor and allows citizens to sue municipalities or the state for failing to fully enforce immigration laws.

I forgot about the enforcement requirements. Not sure I have a handle on what exactly they require yet.

But the "papers" thing is something the media/daily show/snl has latched onto, and I haven't found it yet in the actual bill. Maybe someone else can:

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

I THINK, that since illegal immigration would be a crime, police are simply allowed to investigate it like they would any other crime. Which would include requesting proof of immigration status, just like they can ask for a license to see if you're driving validly. I don't think failing to carry "papers" alone can be a crime, though I only skimmed this bill.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

it seems an invitation to a huge amount of litigation.

Alas, we've likely reached the point where that's an unfortunate but necessary reality.