• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama administration to sue Arizona.

The issue of illegal aliens coming to the USA from Mexico won't be resolved until Mexico is forced to deal with the issue. Right now they are content for people to leave their country and send money back into their economy. That needs to be made difficult.

This is a very interesting point. I'll have to chew on it. Thanks!

And also thank you for answering, clearly & directly, my earlier question regarding federal taxes. Good on ya, mate! :)
 
http://www.kpho.com/news/22533928/detail.html

PHOENIX -- Western Union has agreed to a $94 million settlement in a dispute with Arizona prosecutors that focuses on the state's efforts to cut the flow of immigrant and drug smuggling money through wire transfers.

The Arizona Attorney General's Office said Thursday that the Englewood, Colo.-based company will pay pay $21 million to the State of Arizona and contribute $50 million to the Center for State Enforcement of Antitrust and Consumer Protection Laws, Inc., a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to enhance effective law enforcement through State Attorneys General.
AG Terry Goddard has been playing whack-a-mole with Western Union for a while now on this issue.
 
Is it just me, or does the whole Arizona law seem to be nothing more than a pollitical ploy? Most of what it did was require police to do what they are already doing, anyway... or am i reading it wrong? Someone who gets stopped for a broken tail light and is unable to show a license (proper documentation of being here legally) is already in a bit of trouble, no? If it is not (as the republicans say it is not) a case of racial profiling, then what, exactly is the bill intended to do? Do police, under normal circumstances where they are suspicious that a person might be here illegally (for reasons other than race or otherwise) simply let that person go as things stand without the law? In some places, maybe... there's a little less emphasis on that sort of thing... but not in general.

I'll tell you what it's intended to do... it's intended to fire up the republican base and nothing else! The whole thing is a sham. Perhaps we should have let the petty morons pass their petty little law... honestly, I can't see what it would even change. Individual cops and individual departments will do what they are predisposed to do in any case, and there is a HUGE difference between the law as written and the law as enforced. There is almost nothing in the bill that the police in Arizona are not already doing! And how, exactly does someone go about making a case against a police department that didn't ask someone to prove that they were here legally, anyway? Seriously, I can't envision a lawsuit of that type that would actually work. Among other things, it takes quite a bit of evidence to even begin to discredit someone wearing a police uniform in court. Right or wrong that uniform tends to demand respect.
 
Last edited:
Is it just me, or does the whole Arizona law seem to be nothing more than a pollitical ploy? Most of what it did was require police to do what they are already doing, anyway... or am i reading it wrong? Someone who gets stopped for a broken tail light and is unable to show a license (proper documentation of being here legally) is already in a bit of trouble, no? If it is not (as the republicans say it is not) a case of racial profiling, then what, exactly is the bill intended to do? Do police, under normal circumstances where they are suspicious that a person might be here illegally (for reasons other than race or otherwise) simply let that person go as things stand without the law? In some places, maybe... there's a little less emphasis on that sort of thing... but not in general.

Those are good questions. Unfortunately, you skipped trying to find the answers to them and went right to making your conclusion. You should go back a step.
 
Those are good questions. Unfortunately, you skipped trying to find the answers to them and went right to making your conclusion. You should go back a step.

Oh, I'll admit that the conclusion was already there :D. At least I'm not being cryptic. It's more of a rant than anything, I'll admit. Frustration with rampant idiocy and the power of the press in promoting it (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum) kind of does that to me. I really don't agree with either side in this issue... they're all a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics.
 
Last edited:
Is it just me, or does the whole Arizona law seem to be nothing more than a pollitical ploy? Most of what it did was require police to do what they are already doing, anyway... or am i reading it wrong? Someone who gets stopped for a broken tail light and is unable to show a license (proper documentation of being here legally) is already in a bit of trouble, no? If it is not (as the republicans say it is not) a case of racial profiling, then what, exactly is the bill intended to do? Do police, under normal circumstances where they are suspicious that a person might be here illegally (for reasons other than race or otherwise) simply let that person go as things stand without the law? In some places, maybe... there's a little less emphasis on that sort of thing... but not in general.

Illegals arrested for offenses not requiring bond are typically released. Those committing more serious crimes may or may not be handed over to immigration (ICE). Routine traffic stops are typically not a risk for illegal aliens. Last I heard there were about 600,000 ICE fugitives. These are illegals who were arrested by the Feds then released but did not depart the country or otherwise do what ICE told them. About 100,000 of those had felony convictions.

Basically, if you show up at the airport or border crossing without proper papers, you're turned away. If you sneak across the border, you have to commit a serious crime to get referred to ICE. If you tell ICE that you have a car and enough gas money and promise to leave, they let you go. If you get caught by ICE as an illegal worker, chances are you'll get a temporary work permit and be released.

Of course, if a citizen gets their car impounded for unpaid parking tickets, after paying your fines you had better have a valid driver's license and up to date proof of insurance to get your car released. :confused:

Without a doubt the most effective way to enforce immigration law is with the assistance of local law enforcement. They are the ones who have constant lawful contact with people. Police discover many "additional" crimes such as illegal drugs, weapons, lack of car insurance, DUI and the like via routine encounters. In face ICE already partners with a number of local jurisdictions, but the "priority" is on those illegals who have committed serious crimes in addition to the crime of being here illegally.

Enforcement is insufficient.
 
Enforcement is insufficient.

But the legal immigration system is even more insufficiant. Most of those here illegally actually came into the country legally. Many of your nefarious illegal immagrents are actually the immediate family members of those that are either citizens or on a legal path to citizenship... and it's not just the Mexican border at issue here. I had a close friend from Senegal (Africa) who was here for a college education that was recently deported because -for whatever reason- he was not able to get an extension of his visa in time. He had been here for like a year after he could no longer live here legally. He also didn't have the money to simply fly back to Africa at that point in time. Question: should the American taxpayer pay for his trip back, just to get rid of him? Even if he doesn't want to go?

Also, why the issue with it now, of all times? Illegal immigration is actually DOWN, due to our economic woes. Why is it suddenly a huge issue at a time when it is much less of a problem than it has been in the past? Also consider the budget implications. Is this conductive to the other Republican talking point of reducing spending? Absolutely not! We actually ARE doing more to secure our borders than at any time in our history at this time. Believe me, greater enforcement WILL cost money particularly if you are planning to build a 2000 mile fence, and maintain that fence when people on the other side are destroying it to get through. It will also have very little return in terms of money put back into the economy. How much enforcement is enough? Do we need to throw as much money into this issue as we have into the Iraq war!? Believe me, we could do exactly that and still not solve the problem to some people's satisfaction.

Admittedly, Arizona's law has little to do with the whole fence building propositions. However, it would force the government to spend more on its side of the enforcement, nonetheless. Hate government? Well, this would force the federal government to hire quite a few more federal beaurocrats just to deal with the increased workload of ICE. Hmmm.... is this the "smaller government" that the party pushing this wants us to have? Are you so afraid of the nefarious illegals that you are willing to spend more money than you have to keep them out? Apparently certain Republican politicians are -- oh wait! It's not their money.

Side note: I spent a bit of time in Europe, and you know what? -gasp- You can go between Germany and France on a highway without even slowing down. You might not even notice that there's a checkpoint there if you blink, because it's merely a couple of kiosks on the side of the road that don't require you to do ANYTHING. Also note that -gasp- they speak a different LANGUAGE in each country... aren't they afraid that Germans might get confused and grow up speaking French or vice versa? Admittedly, given that the government and economy of Mexico is not quite what we would wish it could be, this is not possible for America's southern border at this time. However, in time... as circumstances change... I see no reason why it can't be possible at some point in the future. It would requre quite a bit less ethnocentrism on the part of United States citizenry, as well.
 
Last edited:
But the legal immigration system is even more insufficiant.
I said that several posts back.

Most of those here illegally actually came into the country legally.
Do you have any evidence for this?

Many of your nefarious illegal immagrents are actually the immediate family members of those that are either citizens or on a legal path to citizenship...
Please spare me the use of terms like "nefarious" - it adds nothing to discussion and, in my case, is inaccurate. Instead, please explain how someone here illegally is on a legal path to citizenship.

and it's not just the Mexican border at issue here.
Actually, it pretty much is, since this thread is about Arizona's anti-immigration law. Sure, some illegals are from other countries, but I'm not going to pretend that perfectly equal enforcement will not result in the vast majority being those who came across the Mexican border.

I had a close friend from Senegal (Africa) who was here for a college education that was recently deported because -for whatever reason- he was not able to get an extension of his visa in time. He had been here for like a year after he could no longer live here legally. He also didn't have the money to simply fly back to Africa at that point in time. Question: should the American taxpayer pay for his trip back, just to get rid of him?
Yes. We pay $18K a year to keep someone in prison. A one-way ticket to Senegal from Phoenix is about $800. Also, if he didn't have $800 worth of assets he couldn't transport back to Senegal, he's not contributing all that much to the local economy, is he?

Also, why the issue with it now, of all times?
Because we can't do it in the past, and the future isn't here yet.

Illegal immigration is actually DOWN, due to our economic woes. Why is it suddenly a huge issue at a time when it is much less of a problem than it has been in the past?
I live in Phoenix. Let me tell you that there's nothing "sudden" about this. Illegal immigration has been debated for decades in this country. Maybe you're only just becoming familiar with it.

But what does the timing matter? If the economy were good, people would be arguing that we shouldn't mess with what works. Personally, I think it's better to do it now because the economy can rebuild without a dependence on cheap, illegal labor. That's gotta be better than ripping it out later.

Also consider the budget implications. Is this conductive to the other Republican talking point of reducing spending? Absolutely not!
I'm not a Republican.

We actually ARE doing more to secure our borders than at any time in our history at this time.
Securing the border only partially alleviates the problem, and it doesn't nothing about those already here.

Believe me, greater enforcement WILL cost money particularly if you are planning to build a 2000 mile fence, and maintain that fence when people on the other side are destroying it to get through.
Please read the subject line. This about the Arizona law, not the border or the fence.

It will also have very little return in terms of money put back into the economy. How much enforcement is enough? Do we need to throw as much money into this issue as we have into the Iraq war!? Believe me, we could do exactly that and still not solve the problem to some people's satisfaction.
A 10% tax on the money wired to Mexico from the USA will generate $2B per year.
 
I'll tell you what it's intended to do... it's intended to fire up the republican base and nothing else!

Its funny you think this is a republican vs democrat thing. I doubt the richest republicans who profit handily from illegals would agree with you
 
Interjection: People studying in colleges like that typically have very little assets.

I understand that. It doesn't change the fact that he was here illegally and couldn't scrape together $800 to get back home. It seemed like the implication was that I should say, "Oh, he's broke! Let him stay!" If I'm going to pick and choose which illegals I want to stay, the ones with a few bucks in the bank go to the front of the line. If I'm going to pick and choose people to "help out" I'll look at need, and someone who could afford a college education in the USA is probably not all the needy. If we're going to bring over someone who is broke, I'd rather it be someone from an impoverished nation who is willing to bust his ass.

That's just my perspective.
 
I said that several posts back.
Apparently we agree on something then... perhaps we should fix some of that before we start kicking people out, no?

Do you have any evidence for this?
Not right off hand, no. Perhaps "most" wasn't the correct term to use. I have met enough of them personally to know that it's not an uncommon occurance, however (although admittedly, I have a strange and unexplained tendency to gravitate towards people from other countries).
Please spare me the use of terms like "nefarious" - it adds nothing to discussion and, in my case, is inaccurate. Instead, please explain how someone here illegally is on a legal path to citizenship.
Misunderstanding here, on both counts. In the first case, I assumed (apparently wrongly) that you were a typical immigration alarmist... my apologies. In the latter part, I was talking about the illegal party being an immediate relative of someone who is here legally. It doesn't seem logical for me to tell an individual that it's OK for them to live here, but their wife must go back to Mexico until our immigration system, perhaps YEARS later, gets it sorted out.
Actually, it pretty much is, since this thread is about Arizona's anti-immigration law. Sure, some illegals are from other countries, but I'm not going to pretend that perfectly equal enforcement will not result in the vast majority being those who came across the Mexican border.
We can't single out Mexicans and say the laws only apply to them, either, now can we?
Yes. We pay $18K a year to keep someone in prison.

Seriously, do you think that in this case it was even an option? His only crime was that his financial circumstances changed.
A one-way ticket to Senegal from Phoenix is about $800. Also, if he didn't have $800 worth of assets he couldn't transport back to Senegal, he's not contributing all that much to the local economy, is he?
Well no... at one point he was all but homeless. I took him in, myself for a while (actually at that point, he was still legal), but he eventually found a minimum wage job.
Because we can't do it in the past, and the future isn't here yet.
And the future would be a hell of a lot brighter if we concentrated on the correct priorities. I honestly don't think that the immigration issue holds a candle to some of the other problems we are facing right now. If we don't get our acts together, it will take care of itself... because Mexico will have a better economy than WE do -- at least in terms of lower income jobs.
I live in Phoenix. Let me tell you that there's nothing "sudden" about this. Illegal immigration has been debated for decades in this country. Maybe you're only just becoming familiar with it.
Well, honestly... I'll tell you the degree to which I'm familiar with it. I'm from Kansas, and I hear a bunch of egocentric A-holes whine about the indignity of hearing Spanish spoken in their local restaraunts, and whining about how it's a damn shame that nearly 1/3 of the city is now hispanic... pretty much senseless racial and ethnic bias, in other words (nevermind that we've had a hispanic population here since the town's founding). I've heard this kind of nonsense all my life. By the way, I'm white... I don't have to be of Mexican heritage to see how silly it is, even when I hear it from my own family and friends.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't just about the Mexicans... you should have heard them when the local meat packing plant started hiring a lot of Islamic people from Somalia, instead... and only a few years after 9/11. There was never any violence involved, but the talk was rather unseemly... people even getting worried that these people might set off a bomb or something... because we ALL KNOW that all Islamic people have a tendency to do such things, right? That problem took care of itself when the meat packing plant shut down a huge part of its operations a few years later (devastating the local economy, i might add). As far as I know, there are no Somalians whatsoever living here at this time.

So yeah, I get a little freaked out when people tell me about how the Mexicans are invading our country. People are people, and I don't honestly think that our culture requires that kind of protection. So WHAT if white people are losing their majority... if you admit that white people are no better than non white people, doesn't that cease to be an issue? Perhaps this isn't what you were saying, but it is something I hear a lot. It all boils down to senseless fear of those who are different.
But what does the timing matter? If the economy were good, people would be arguing that we shouldn't mess with what works. Personally, I think it's better to do it now because the economy can rebuild without a dependence on cheap, illegal labor. That's gotta be better than ripping it out later.
Timing MATTERS. In more ways than one.

The only reason that pushing this issue is anywhere close to politically feasable nationwide can be found in our recent history: 9/11 and the mistrust of other cultures that comes from it (admittedly not Mexico specifically, but by extension, all cultures)... the economic downturn and the search for someone to blame... why not the illegals? In the bigger picture, if we use this moment of political feasibility, we are doing nothing more nor less noble than caving in to FEAR, as a nation.

Secondly, it takes up resources for something that is not a priority, and is becoming better instead of worse completely on its own. There is only one thing this country should be concentrating on right now, and that is fixing this horrible economic situation that we've gotten ourselves into. Furthermore, we should do so without spending a bunch of money on meaningless side issues that are politically convienient at the time.

I'm not a Republican.
Congratulations... at least you're not a total idiot.

Securing the border only partially alleviates the problem, and it doesn't nothing about those already here.
Agreed. should all 12 million of those already here be sent back to Mexico (or elsewhere)? I honestly don't think that'd work very well. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, just mentioning that this is not a viable option.
Please read the subject line. This about the Arizona law, not the border or the fence.
In the national debate, they appear to be parts of the same trend, with many of the same outspoken supporters.
A 10% tax on the money wired to Mexico from the USA will generate $2B per year.

I don't know if this is the case or not... but might that be a violation of treaties we have with Mexico? NAFTA, for instance?
 
Last edited:
Manopolus, I am sorry but your view of this as being anything sudden just shows how ignorant you are of the situation. Try and remember that the last governor who upped the ante against criminal invasion was democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

The concern here in AZ and NM has been rather drastic ever since Operation Gatekeeper shifted the vast majority of the problem our way. That you haven't been paying attention over the last two decades is no reason to tar the citizens of Arizona the way you have
 
Manopolus, I am sorry but your view of this as being anything sudden just shows how ignorant you are of the situation. Try and remember that the last governor who upped the ante against criminal invasion was democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

The concern here in AZ and NM has been rather drastic ever since Operation Gatekeeper shifted the vast majority of the problem our way. That you haven't been paying attention over the last two decades is no reason to tar the citizens of Arizona the way you have

hmm... and I thought my post was talking more about people in Kansas (and not exactly everybody here). I can only relate to that which I have context for.

Yes, the immigration issue has been lurking out there for a long time... actually since my living memory and before, not just the past two decades. It was, quite frankly, raging as far back as the 1970s (about as far back as I can remember), and possibly before. Nationally, a lot of us stopped listening around 1990 or so and I suppose perhaps it has become more localized.

I also know that there is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides, which is confusing the issue beyond recognition... and that's my second biggest issue with the debate itself, in a way. The biggest one is simply that I think there are more important things to worry about than an issue which has divided the country for decades with neither side willing to comprimise an inch.

The best facts I've been able to uncover show that illegal immigration is DOWN. the number of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in Arizona (other than being here) is DOWN. The number of crimes in Arizona, period... DOWN. Border security -- more enforcement than ever before. Federal money available to spend on the issue beyond that which is already being used: NONEXISTENT.

And Arizona has the gall to pass a state law which would FORCE the federal government to spend MORE resources on the issue? You think that's right? It's not even LEGAL, much less right. Since when did the state of Arizona have the power to push the feds around? Since when did the state of Arizona have the right to spend MY tax dollars, as a citizen of Kansas?

Have you ever heard the phrase "no taxation without representation?" Well, I have no representation in The People's Republic of Arizona, or whatever you choose to call yourselves. Yet you think you can somehow create a state law which makes demands upon federal resources which my tax money pays for? And it doesn't even appear to be a dire emergency?
 
Last edited:

umm... just curious, but did you intend for this one word post to have any MEANING attatched to it? If you did, it went right past me with no comprehension. I do understand this bit of troll lingo to a degree... but I'm not sure even who it was aimed at. Usually its a word trolls use when speaking to other trolls... at least in its historical use as a one word comment on the internet. Was someone trying to "pwn" you or something?
 
Last edited:
Side note: I spent a bit of time in Europe, and you know what? -gasp- You can go between Germany and France on a highway without even slowing down. You might not even notice that there's a checkpoint there if you blink, because it's merely a couple of kiosks on the side of the road that don't require you to do ANYTHING. Also note that -gasp- they speak a different LANGUAGE in each country... aren't they afraid that Germans might get confused and grow up speaking French or vice versa?

You DO know why that is, don't you?

Admittedly, given that the government and economy of Mexico is not quite what we would wish it could be, this is not possible for America's southern border at this time. However, in time... as circumstances change... I see no reason why it can't be possible at some point in the future. It would requre quite a bit less ethnocentrism on the part of United States citizenry, as well.

It seems you do. So why the rant?

It may be possible in the future. So what? This type of system works with (semi) equal partners. The onus falls on Mexico to come up to speed with us, not for us to fall back to them. If they are not interested in doing so, that is their problem. Until then, our responsibility is to protect our own.
 
It may be possible in the future. So what? This type of system works with (semi) equal partners. The onus falls on Mexico to come up to speed with us, not for us to fall back to them. If they are not interested in doing so, that is their problem. Until then, our responsibility is to protect our own.

You say that as if the topic of this thread weren't a drastic change in policy proposed by the Arizona law.
 
A 10% tax on the money wired to Mexico from the USA will generate $2B per year.

Maybe so, but do you suppose Arizona has the authority to impose such a tax?

This is pertinent to the lawsuit. The guy who wrote the law claims that it's all about states' rights.
 
You DO know why that is, don't you?



It seems you do. So why the rant?

It may be possible in the future. So what? This type of system works with (semi) equal partners. The onus falls on Mexico to come up to speed with us, not for us to fall back to them. If they are not interested in doing so, that is their problem. Until then, our responsibility is to protect our own.

Hence, its label as a side note. Admittedly, the situation is somewhat different.

However, shall we examine the notion that them filthy foreigners are stealing all our jobs, for instance? I related a story earlier about a certain meat packing plant nearly shutting down its operations. Most of those working at this plant were foreigners. However, no American citizen that I've ever known has ever applied there and failed to get a job (with the exception of those that had already worked there and quit without notice or were fired). I actually worked there myself for about 8 months back in the early 90s. People in this town have known for years that if they could not find employment elsewhere, they would most likely be able to get a job at IBP if they haven't already burned their bridges, so to speak. The only reason that there was a large influx of foreigners at this plant was because the company imported them from elsewhere due to a labor shortage.

When the plant all but shut down (taken over by Tyson, somewhere along the way) it wasn't all that shut down. In the months that followed a lot of retail businesses also started to suffer. Could it be that possibly those hated foreigners also contributed to our economy? Yes, they sent money home, but they also produced a product and spent money here.

Maybe in some places an influx of people from another country actually DOES hurt the economy... but in this situation, it was not the case. And yet... I couldn't go to the local bar or hang out with certain people without hearing about how the damn foreigners are taking all our jobs and ruining our economy.

The fact is, someone from Mexico that wants a job in the U.S. will go to places where he is likely to actually get work. As a general rule, they do not gravitate to places where there is a lot of competition for jobs. They won't get hired in such places. The money they spend here will create more jobs, in most cases, even though some of their income will go back to Mexico.

As to the gang violence and all the other nonsense? Has your home been invaded by some evil mexican drug gang? Your wife and children raped? Your possesions stolen? For most Arizona residents, I suspect this is not the case.

Drug problems? Hmm... right here in east central Kansas we have a Meth problem. People are manufacturing it in the remote rural areas (actually, quite near here) and selling it in our cities. Maybe you'd like to show me how Arizona's drug problem is worse than our drug problem? Is it worse than New York's too? Can you explain why it is our duty to treat Arizona as a special case? You don't need borders to have illegal drug issues, or gangs involved in them. In reality, the feds actually ARE giving you extra assistance with your drug trafficking problems. The difference here is that Arizona thinks it can take the wheel of our federal resources without consulting the other 49 states in this union and the representatives of their citizens in the FEDERAL government. Oh no, Arizona is sooo much more important than anyone else, and they would rather blame MEXICAN drug gangs, to show how special they are being on the border... as if Mexican Drug gangs are more dangerous than some you see on the east coast. Hell, the mafia don't hold a candle to them MEXICAN drug gangs.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom