Boycott Arizona?

[Cleon]

Moving the goalposts a bit there?

...Not in the least.

 

[RussDill]

I used to live in Southern Arizona. On the drive to Tuscon is a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint, though it is not always manned. If it is manned, every vehicle has to stop. I get waved though every time. I admit that I have no idea how it would work if I looked like I could be an illegal immigrant.

Personally, I think those checkpoints are stupid because everybody knows where they are and because they are not always manned. Anybody with half a brain trying to take illegals or drugs north will find out if the checkpoint is manned before trying to take their shipment and if it is, take another route or wait until it is not manned.

Yes, the ones on state lines associated with checkpoints likely don't do very much other then regulate commercial traffic. However, there are other checkpoints associated with choke points.

The westbound checkpoint on the I-8 in southern California is placed within a mountain pass. It is so well placed that street lights are installed on the east bound side of the freeway. I'm not sure if it is to make those bypassing the checkpoint by traveling west bound on the east bound interstate visible to the border patrol, drivers, or both.

Next time you go though a checkpoint like this. Look for detained individuals.

[ETA: a quick search shows that wrong way drivers have been a serious problem in this area http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985959/posts]

 

[mhaze]

Yes, the ones on state lines associated with checkpoints likely don't do very much other then regulate commercial traffic. However, there are other checkpoints associated with choke points.

The westbound checkpoint on the I-8 in southern California is placed within a mountain pass. It is so well placed that street lights are installed on the east bound side of the freeway. I'm not sure if it is to make those bypassing the checkpoint by traveling west bound on the east bound interstate visible to the border patrol, drivers, or both.

Next time you go though a checkpoint like this. Look for detained individuals.

[ETA: a quick search shows that wrong way drivers have been a serious problem in this area http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985959/posts]

Don't forget that oftentimes they are looking for specific individuals, groups or cars that fit certain descriptions - classic crime dragnet work - particularly in these areas.

And in these areas that's gonna mean Mexican drug trafficers and their mules.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
You mean like complete the double fence that Congress funded, but which the Obama administration stopped building?

Those border fences are an absolute waste of resources, unless you're willing to dump a massive amount of money into essentially building the equivalent of the Berlin Wall... for 2000 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Sigh. How many times has this lie been debunked on this forum? Oh well, I guess we'll have to do it again. Seems leftists NEVER EVER learn anything (except maybe their base in line).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll indicated the American people favor a proposal to build a 2,000-mile security fence by a 51-to-37 percent margin.

... snip ...

A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars. Costs for a wall that would run the entire length of the border might be as low as $851 million for a standard 10-foot prison chain link fence topped by razor wire. For another $362 million, the fence could be electrified. A larger 12-foot tall, two-foot-thick concrete wall painted on both sides would run about $2 billion. Initially it was estimated that the San Diego fence would cost $14 million -- about $1 million a mile. The first 11 miles of the fence eventually cost $42 million -- $3.8 million per mile, and the last 3.5 miles may cost even more since they cover more difficult terrain. An additional $35 million to complete the final 3.5 miles was approved in 2005 by the Department of Homeland Security -- $10 million per mile.

and note that even if the average cost of a security barrier along the entire border was $5 million a mile, a 2000 mile fence would only cost 10 billion dollars. Now compare that with what illegals cost just Californians every single year. Compare that with the cost and effectiveness of the Stimulus bill(s) so far.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA493726

The Secure Fence Act: The Expected Impact on Illegal Immigration and Counterterrorism

December 2008

... snip ... The study suggests that fences can prove effective in curbing illegal immigration

This video has a lot on fence effectiveness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdvnWmgySrE

It shows that where the fencing is properly done, it clearly works. Two fences in the same sector, one properly done (double layered, no breaks, etc) and one improperly done (we'll call it Obama fencing) shows that crossings plummet at the properly designed fence and hardly decrease at the Obama fencing.

You want evidence that fences work? Even Napolitano must think they do because she said in November that the building of 600 miles of fence (even though that's actually an untrue figure) had helped make the borders so secure that we could now proceed with immigration reform (meaning turn illegals aliens into democrat voting citizens in time for the next election).

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-13-napolitano-border-security_N.htm

Napolitano pronounces U.S. border more secure now

Posted 11/13/2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has met many of the border security benchmarks Congress set in 2007 as a prerequisite to immigration reform and now it's time to change the law, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday.

... snip ...

She cited construction of 600 miles of border fence and the hiring of more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents.

As to statistics of what happens when properly designed fences are built, look at the experience in San Diego along a 14 miles stretch. In 1993, prior to building a physical, imposing fence system they deployed a significant border guard presence to stem the tide. In 1993 they caught over 100,000 illegals in that one small stretch (with hundreds of thousands more probably making it past the guards). After they built a multiple fence system, the number apprehended dropped to just 5000 a year with very few actually getting past the three fence system. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5326083

MM, you seem to be under the impression that allowing millions of illegals into the country costs us nothing … isn't a massive burden (financially and otherwise) on our society. You couldn't be more wrong.

Do you realize that in Los Angeles, about 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicides reportedly target illegal aliens? And up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. In 1995, the California Department of Justice reported that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California was illegals. These gangs were and are bringing drugs and serious crime to our cities ... and not just cities in southern California. And you don't think that's costly or a problem?

Here's just a small sample of the true human cost to American citizens from illegal immigration ... http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html . These aren't nameless victims. They are fathers, mothers, friends and neighbors.

According to statistics released by Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, in 2006, illegal aliens were committing 12 murders A DAY in the US. That's more, per year, than died on 9/11. And you don't think that's a massive problem?

Representative King noted that in addition to murders, illegals were killing 13 a day from drinking and driving. Again, more than died on 9/11. And 8 American children were sexually abused by illegal aliens EVERY DAY. In fact, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimated there were about a quarter million illegal immigrant sex offenders in the US who had an average of four victims EACH. And you think that's not a massive problem that costs us dearly?

And just the other day it was noted (http://bigjournalism.com/sright/201...chases-last-month-not-one-perp-a-u-s-citizen/ ) that in Arizona County, of the 64 highway chases that occurred in one month, not one involved a US citizen. But then car chases cost us nothing.

And look at the effect on our prisons. At the end of 2003, over a quarter million illegal aliens were being held in US jails and prisons. The GAO released a report in 2005 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05646r.pdf ) that studied a little over 55,000 illegals who were incarcerated in US facilities in 2003. They found that those 55,000 illegals represented nearly half a million arrests. And you think this isn't a problem?

You don't think the socioeconomic stress from millions of poor, essentially uneducated, non-english speaking people on our education, health, law enforcement, prison, welfare and transport systems is a problem? Do you realize that illegals comprise 2.6 - 6.6 percent of the population in the US (depending on whose figures you believe) as compared to 0.3-0.6 percent in France or 1.2% in Germany? And you don't see that as a problem?

And what about the environmental damage being done by illegals. You must have heard the descriptions of what the flood of illegals have done to Arizona's very fragile desert areas. You leftists are always whining about the environment but not in this case?

Or maybe you've just balanced all those bad things against the fact that once illegals get handed citizenship in yet another "one-time" immigration reform program, most will vote democrat.

The fact is walls and fences DO work. The goal is to REDUCE (not totally eliminate) illegal immigration ... just to reduce it to manageable levels. Walls have worked in that context in Israel and elsewhere ... even in San Diego.

And it's pretty clear that building a double fence/wall across the entire border would be much less costly over time than the tens of thousands of border guards, soldiers and law enforcement personnel, and all the equipment they will need, and all the detention and hearing facilities that will be required, plus the detention facility staff, lawyers, judges, public relations officers, interpreters, bus drivers, etc etc etc that any alternative requires. Even a high-side estimate of $5 million a mile (the Israeli's built their 25 high concrete wall for well under that) would allow us to block our 2000 mile border for about $10 billion ... peanuts compared to the long term cost of any alternatives.

And how can any of the alternatives to a physical barrier be more reliable? How often do we hear about people in the government being bribed or being found incompetent? And the border is 2000 miles long. What are you going to do ... line border guards up shoulder to shoulder that entire stretch? The fact is smugglers will study border guard patterns and outsmart them ... study electronics and outsmart it. Without a major physical barrier, it will take only minutes to disappear into the crowd or the wilds. What then?

Would any of the alternatives you suggest (and I notice you haven't suggested any) be more easily tested? No. A barrier you can build anywhere and test anytime. You can easily put your best and brightest against it and see what they do. Testing humans against humans or electronics is always much more complex. You can improve a barrier. Improving human guards is not all that easy.

And would any of your alternatives have less impact on those in the border areas? I doubt it. Since you are not going to stop illegals at the border, you must be going to try and catch them after they may have traveled tens or even scores of miles inside the border. How can putting thousands of armed personnel who will have to operate in America's backyards, on America's highways, in Americas border cities, in Americas wild, many miles inward from the border and in the middle of those very big cities that are near the border ever be less impactful than simply stopping the flood between three fences built right at the border? You are literally talking about militarizing the southwest if you hope to catch a sufficient fraction of those who will violate an unfenced/unwalled border.

Will your alternatives be more humane to the illegals? No. You are going to allow illegals to go on risking their lives in the millions because they will think they can beat your armed border guards at their own game. Many will die in American deserts, just as they do now. Many will be killed by smugglers who will take their money and lead them to nowhere, as they do now. Or hold them hostage demanding more money from relatives. Some may be killed by border agents trying to intercept them. What if the illegals make it to a church? Are you proposing we go in and get them? What if they fire on those trying to enforce your alternative to a fence? Is it humane to allow pregnant women and small children to face the danger they do now? What if a woman crosses the border and then immediately has a baby? That happens now. A pregnant woman would have a problem scaling a fence. But a few additional guards and some electronic sensors aren't going to stop this scenario. So what will our government do then under your unnamed alterative ... since the child automatically becomes a citizen ... an anchor baby? You won't see pregnant women and 3 year olds scaling well designed fences or walls. The humane thing is not to allow these people the hope of beating the system by putting a larger barrier in their path ... one not easily crossed. One that will deter folks from giving thousands of dollars to smugglers but instead spend that money on improving their lot in their own country.

Will your alternatives be less subject to the whims of the current administration? No. There already is a governor and mayors in California who are not enforcing immigration laws ... who are openly hostile to the notion of stopping the flow. Even boycotting anyone state does try to stem the flow. The governor isn't even a Hispanic or a democRAT (at least on paper). Wait till that governor is both. Look at the whims of the Bush administration ... a republican administration. They promised us 10000 new guards in 2004's budget and gave us 210. The politicos can change or not enforce laws year to year. It will be much harder to unbuild or ignore a fence. A few years back we watched them catch over 1000 illegals in one day ... and promptly release 80 percent of them into our society. If THAT is what we can expect under your alternative, leave me out.

Would your alternative cause less harm to our relationship to Mexico? No. A fence will reduce contacts that may lead to confrontation. A fence will make it less likely that Mexico will see America as a dumping ground for its poor. A fence will return the focus to LEGAL immigration between the two countries. A fence will force Mexico to look to its own solutions to its economic and social problems. A fence will evenhelp fight Mexico's drug cartel problem.

So you are simply wrong.

And so is Obama ...

http://www.cis.org/node/680

Obama Argues He’s More Open-border Than McCain:

"The system isn’t working when 12 million people live in hiding (BAC - that's a code word for illegal aliens who are already here), and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year (BAC - actually, the number is probably at least half a million per year); when companies hire undocumented immigrants (BAC - that's another code word for illegal aliens) instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union (BAC - ah yes, we must support Democrat controlled unions); when communities (BAC - filled with illegal aliens) are terrorized by ICE immigration raids – when nursing mothers are torn from their babies (BAC - let's talk about the number murders committed by illegal aliens), when children come home from school to find their parents missing (BAC - let's talk about the number of rapes committed by illegal aliens), when people are detained (BAC - for being illegally in the US) without access to legal counsel.

. . .

The 12 million people in the shadows (BAC - that's a code word for illegal aliens who are already here), the communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hands (BAC - because democrats sure aren't doing it), the neighborhoods seeing rising tensions as citizens are pitted against new immigrants (BAC - no, against illegal aliens)…they’re counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves – rhetoric that poisons our political discourse (BAC - you mean like mexican flag filled May Day demonstrations in Los Angeles?), degrades our democracy (BAC - what degrades our democracy are democrat efforts to let illegal aliens vote), and has no place in this great nation (BAC - neither do the illegal aliens). They’re (BAC - he means the illegal aliens) counting on us to rise above the fear and demagoguery, the pettiness (BAC - that's right folks, laws protecting our nation from illegal aliens are petty) and partisanship (BAC - partisanship isn't any clearer than on the Democrat side), and finally enact comprehensive immigration reform ((BAC - what he means is let's let's call those illegals citizens and do everything we can to let even more in our country as well).

... snip ...

Yes, they broke the law (BAC - and are still breaking the law). And we should not excuse that. We should require them to pay a fine (BAC - and just how are we going to collect?), learn English (BAC - and just how are you going to ensure that when all you do is bend over backwards to put everything in Spanish?), and go to the back of the line for citizenship – behind those who came here legally (BAC - does anyone really believe THAT will happen?). But we cannot – and should not – deport 12 million people (BAC - we aren't suggesting that ... but what we are suggesting is that we should stop the inflow of illegals BEFORE we decide what to do about these 12 ... it could be 20 ... million illegals. Does Obama really believe in Border control? Would Democrats really hold him to it? Or do Obama and the democrats see illegals as a pool of ignorant democrat voters that they must have to stay in power?)."

Build a fence/wall coast to coast ... now.

And support Arizona. Boycott Los Angeles, instead.

 

[Kopji]

Not attempting to refute everything, but...

According to statistics released by Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, in 2006, illegal aliens were committing 12 murders A DAY in the US. That's more, per year, than died on 9/11. And you don't think that's a massive problem?

Representative King noted that in addition to murders, illegals were killing 13 a day from drinking and driving. Again, more than died on 9/11. And 8 American children were sexually abused by illegal aliens EVERY DAY. In fact, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimated there were about a quarter million illegal immigrant sex offenders in the US who had an average of four victims EACH. And you think that's not a massive problem that costs us dearly?

These are all just popular fictions, does not make them true.

Even conservative blogs such as Captain's Quarters ridiculed King's and WND's numbers: "[T]he numbers demonstrate rather clearly that King and WND are talking out of their hats. Of all the people arrested for murders in 2005 (10,083), only 4,955 were white/Hispanic, and that includes all arrests in that racial category. In order to believe King and WND, every single one of these people would have to be illegal aliens."

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/kingillegal.html

And just the other day it was noted (http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010...a-u-s-citizen/ ) that in Arizona County, of the 64 highway chases that occurred in one month, not one involved a US citizen. But then car chases cost us nothing.

There is no "Arizona county". This would be Pinal county. And I have no idea what the article is supposed to prove. This sure seems like possible racial profiling to me: When all the people you chase are illegal aliens... Where are illegal aliens getting all these cars? Why are local police killing so many bystanders in car chases?
Whatever...

As long as the per-capita income differential between the US (over $30,000) and Mexico (less than $4,000) continues to be so wide, it will be difficult to stop immigrants.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm

I agree with that.

Also from the site:
San Diego costs:
"The first 11 miles of the fence eventually cost $42 million"
3.8 million per mile.
2000 miles = 8 billion

I remain skeptical of fences. The distances here are vast. There is little infrastructure to support a major construction project. Transport of supplies, workers, food, etc would be far higher than San Diego, which is essentially an urban area where people work and go home at the end of the day. Not 127 degree desert, no water for hundreds of miles, no electricity, no roads - and one of the most fragile environments on the planet.

Surely objections would, and should, be raised to completely isolating migratory animal populations between the US and Mexico.

I do agree with the boycotting LA thing though. Aren't they the city that saved us all from the diabolical master and slave drives?

 

[Dragoonster]

The US federal government does far worse things imo than what Arizona's proposing, and I haven't boycotted all goods/services/whatever made in the entire US. Why would I boycott one state that proposes a relatively lesser "evil" than the entire country's government does?

Is anyone in the thread that's planning on boycotting Arizona planning on boycotting the entire US? If not, why not? You think the Arizona law is worse than anything the federal government does? Or is foregoing all US goods simply more burdensome on you than whatever Arizona produces?

 

[Brainster]

The boycott cuts both ways:

Arizona tourists are biting back against San Diego for its city council's decision to boycott the Grand Canyon State over its immigration law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last month.

Would-be tourists have notified the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and some hotels that they are canceling their scheduled travel to the coastal vacation destination, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

As the story notes, a lot more Arizonans visit San Diego in the summer months than those who visit AZ from SD.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Surely objections would, and should, be raised to completely isolating migratory animal populations between the US and Mexico.

This is my major objection. Why should animals have to suffer just because people lack the political will to enforce laws?

One thing the fence would end for people like me are the occasional rare herps that have travelled outside their range. There are a lot of us that straddle the AZ/Mexico border looking for reptiles. There are also tons of birders in the area. You basically already have a "fence" of people that observe the area, just no real authority to report mules and coyotees to.

One of the absolutely bizzarre things you will see on this border is the armed birder or granola mod. Its as if you assembled a creature from random parts

 

[marplots]

I'm not going to visit Arizona because it's a hell-hole full of sand and sharp, pointy plants. Nothing to do with protesting.

Nevada had to make gambling and prostitution legal to get me to go there.

 

[MikeMangum]

I'm wondering if those who call for a boycott of Arizona are also going to call for a boycott of New York?

Schoolcraft also documented evidence of the hard quotas officers had to meet with respect to both arrests and citations. As the Voice summarized:

Police officers were routinely threatened with discipline (transfers, shift changes, partner changes, and assignment changes) by their superiors if they did not make their monthly quota of summonses, stop-and-frisks, arrests, and community visits.

Officers were instructed to arrest people for "blocking the sidewalk," for not possessing ID (even while just feet from their homes), even for no reason at all (cops were told to "articulate" a charge at a later time). The cops were told to make arrests even if they knew they'd be voiding the charge at the end of their shifts. As a sergeant implores in one recording, "Again, it's all about the numbers."

...

Blacks and Latinos made up an incredible 90 percent of the stop-and-frisks in 2009, yet the arrest rate among those stopped was about the same as that of whites.

I know, I know, it's about the principle of the thing, it has absolutely nothing to do with moralistic posturing:

Seattle has joined several other U.S. cities in protesting Arizona's sweeping new immigration law. [...]

The council's resolution was written to protect the only substantial contract Seattle has with an Arizona company - a $106,000-a-month deal with American Traffic Solutions. The Scottsdale-based company operates Seattle's 29 red-light cameras.

 

[MikeMangum]

What...no one is going to castigate New York as fascist for arresting people for not possessing ID? Or applying the law disporportionately to minorities?

I'm as shocked as Captain Renault.

 

[MikeMangum]

Moralistic posturing?

The Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott the state of Arizona over its new immigration-enforcement law, and now the Arizona Corporation Commission has responded. Gary Pierce, one of the commissioners chosen in state-wide elections to the utility regulation panel, notes that Los Angeles gets about 25% of its power from Arizona producers. If the City of Angels really wants a boycott, Pierce offers his services to help, as he explains in a letter to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

Copy of the Letter:

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce

I wonder what the response will be.

 

[pipelineaudio]

How much of California's water comes from CAP ?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I heard a piece on NPR today about the various entities (mostly cities) boycotting Arizona. In the piece, there was a short bit about supporters of the Arizona law calling for "buycotts" to help send revenue to Arizona. There was a sound bite of a woman decrying cities and states for passing boycott resolutions where she says that it's undemocratic because the politicians passing such resolutions haven't conducted a poll, so they're not accurately reflecting the will of their constituents.

First, they're elected, so if they aren't keeping an eye on the polls when they make a controversial decision, they're not likely to be re-elected.

Second, the exact same argument could be made for any "buycott" resolution.

 

[Neally]

How much of California's water comes from CAP ?

Or electricity?

it seems that Arizona's power plants generate about 25% of the electricity that runs what Briton Eddie Izzard calls the City of Angles.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/arizona-illegal-immigrants-los-angeles.html

 

[daredelvis]

I'm not going to visit Arizona because it's a hell-hole full of sand and sharp, pointy plants. Nothing to do with protesting.

Nevada had to make gambling and prostitution legal to get me to go there.

Yes, don't go there. The Sonoran desert is an ugly place, and don't even get me started on the White Mountains. And the idea of a place that has good Mexican food... horrible. It is exactly as you described. Never go there.

Daredelvis

 

[DDWW]

Yes, don't go there. The Sonoran desert is an ugly place, and don't even get me started on the White Mountains. And the idea of a place that has good Mexican food... horrible. It is exactly as you described. Never go there.

Daredelvis

And you cannot find a green olive cheeseburger anywhere here!

DD(But if you want jalapenos in your milkshakes )WW

 

[Biscuit]

As an Arizona resident I would like to make the following request. If you are going to boycott us please limit it to the metropolis of Phoenix. The rest of Arizona isn't quit as nutty and we need your business. That is all.

 

[DDWW]

How much of California's water comes from CAP ?

Now if they would boycott their illegal drugs, that probably came up through AZ, then that would be a big help!

DDWW

 

[pipelineaudio]

If they boycott tourism in the Valley, they'll only be putting illegals out of work, so I say "go for it"