Boycott Arizona?

[thaiboxerken]

Some energy officials in AZ are talking of cutting off power to LA because of the boycott.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Has anybody pointed out how Arizona put the AZ in Nazi?

 

[marplots]

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.

Ha! I knew it. All the good stuff was hidden so this Michigan boy would find tarantulas, dead armadillos, scorpions, and leather-faced women.

Your reverse psychology has worked. I must now go there. Will you have cold tequila?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Ha! I knew it. All the good stuff was hidden so this Michigan boy would find tarantulas, dead armadillos, scorpions, and leather-faced women.

Your reverse psychology has worked. I must now go there. Will you have cold tequila?

We don't have the armadillos

Don't forget: centipedes, solpugids, HUGE ants, fire ants, harvester ants, palo verde beetles, maddeningly loud cicadas, funnel web spiders, brown recluse, black widows, the fact that every plant you encounter either wants to poke you, poison you or both

But I wouldn't have it any other way

The Hassayampa will keep your tequila cold

 

[BeAChooser]

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

Since you didn't actually present anything to contest Deborah Schurman-Kauflin's estimate that were (between 1999 and 2006) a quarter million illegal immigrant sex offenders with an average of four victims each in the US, I assume you aren't claiming that's a popular fiction. Here's her study and what she concluded:

http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals

After conducting a 12 month in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders for the time period of January 1999 through April 2006, it is clear that the U.S. public faces a dangerous threat from sex predators who cross the U.S. borders illegally.

There were 1500 cases analyzed in depth. They included: serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides, and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants. Police reports, public records, interviews with police, and media accounts were all included. Offenders were located in 36 states, but it is clear, that the most of the offenders were located in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants. California was number one, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.

Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.

This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.

As to your claim that the figure of 12 people murdered a day by illegals in the US couldn't possibly be right, note that Representative King didn't just pull the 12 murder figure out of thin air. He based his estimate on two GAO reports (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05337r.pdf and http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05646r.pdf ) on the number of incarcerated illegal aliens and the total number of incarcerated prisoners, applying the resulting percentages to the FBI's reported number of crimes in different catergories. Based on that, illegal aliens would be responsible for about 31% of the murders. That doesn't seem impossible.

But as you noted at the end of your post:

But King's claim that 28 percent of prison inmates are "criminal aliens" is itself questionable. … BAC snip … according to the BJS, 6.4 percent of all state and federal inmates at midyear 2005 were "noncitizens."

Who should we believe? The BJS calculates that number by claiming (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/jim08st.pdf ) that in 2005 there were only 30,082 non-citizens out of a total of 516,189 inmates. But is that really correct? This non-partisan GAO report would suggest not:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05337r.pdf

April 7, 2005

… snip …

Subject: Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails

… snip …

we analyzed population and cost data from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) on criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons. We analyzed data on criminal aliens submitted to BJA by state and local governments seeking reimbursement under SCAAP and incarceration cost data from the 5 states and 5 local jails that incarcerated the largest number of criminal aliens reimbursed through SCAAP in fiscal year 2003. This methodology was used because there was no reliable population and incarceration cost data on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prisons and local jails.

… snip …

we found the following:

- At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004 — a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years—about 27 percent. … snip …

- At the state level, the 50 states received reimbursement for incarcerating about 77,000 criminal aliens in fiscal year 2002 and 47 states received reimbursement for incarcerating about 74,000 in fiscal year 2003. … snip …

- At the local level, in fiscal year 2002, SCAAP reimbursed about 750 local governments for incarcerating about 138,000 criminal aliens. In fiscal year 2003, SCAAP reimbursed about 700 local governments for about 147,000 criminal aliens, with 5 local jail systems4 accounting for about 30 percent of these criminal aliens.

Somewhere along the line, there seem to be a few hundred thousand illegals being dropped out of the BJS figures. But I will agree with you, that even if the number is only 6% (it's now 9% according to the BJS source), that's still a huge problem costing billions of dollars every single year.

I would also point out two things that might be wrong with the statement you quoted from "Captain's Quarters". First, according to the FBI, in 2005 there were about 16,700 murders in the US (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html ). So only about a fourth of them would have to be due to illegals to result in 12 per day, and that is entirely conceiveable given the rest of what is known.

Second, note that your source only said there were 10000 people "arrested" for murder that year. But according to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html ), there were 17,029 offenders *identified* and 5,452 of those offenders were identified as white, while another 4,899 offenders were listed as of unknown race. If those of unknown race also had the same proportion of white/hispanic to blacks as those of known race, that would leave about 7700 white/hispanic offenders … plenty of room for less than 4380 offending illegal aliens (remember, some of these people commit multiple homicides) to have murdered 4380 people that year.

And there are other facts that suggest the estimate of 12 illegal murders a day by illegals might not be inaccurate.

According to Steven Camorata, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, in 2004 "roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level" were illegal aliens. Those a huge percentages considering that illegals only account for about 3-6 percent of the total population.

According to Heather McDonald of the Center for Immigration Studies, in testimony before Congress in 2005 said that about 95% of the outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles targeted illegals. According to a DOJ funded study (http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantGangsAnnounce ) in Los Angeles about 60-90% of the notorious MS-13 gang are illegals. And that gang is not just in LA. MS-13 is active in 48 states and according to the same source, in one jurisdiction that was studied, Northern Virginia, some 30 to 40 percent of the gang task force case load involved illegal aliens." And gangs are one of the largest contributors to the murder rate in this country.

Even in places like Illinois, illegals make up a sizeable fraction of murderers. For example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States ) , in 2008 "an audit done by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that 122 of the 637 jail inmates in the Lake County, Illinois jail were of questionable immigration status. … snip … According to Lake County sheriff Mark Curran, illegal immigrants were charged with half of the 14 murders in the county.

In any case, I'm willing to bet that murders by illegals cost the country BILLIONS of dollars of dollars every year and other types of harm. And these costs could be reduced if we could just get the illegal component of immigration under better control. What Arizona is doing is a start.

There is no "Arizona county". This would be Pinal county.

Whatever. The County sheriff stated that "Last month alone, just in one patrol region, we had sixty-four pursuits. *That means people who were driving a vehicle, failed to yield, took off like a bat out of hell, running red lights, creating 
traffic wrecks, numerous people were killed in these wrecks over the 
last several months, and who are these people? *Not one of them was a 
U.S. citizen."

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.

Seems to me you are the one profiling. Profiling the cops by ASSUMING they are racists and only chasing illegals (presumably letting non-illegals who decide to run go).

And as Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said, "This isn't about race. This isn't about Mexico versus the United States," Bizzell said. "It's about a drunk Mexican that's illegal, driving drunk, no operator's license, stolen vehicle, killing a little 7-year-old boy."

And this is also about denial and literal idiocy by the left for no other reason than to promote their political agenda. Admit it. The NYTimes, LATimes, WashingtonPost, the liberal mainstream news media, democrats across the board including Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, have all outright LIED in their articles and statements about the Arizona Law. There is NO WAY that Eric Holder didn't read the AZ law before he declared he was going to file suit against it. He LIED. This case just proves once again what a pack of liars democrats have become these days.

By the way, one of the things that Representative King also estimated, using the two GAO reports and FBI statistics, is the number of people killed each day by illegal aliens in car accidents involving alcohol. And the number he came up with was 13. Seems a little off, though. It appears the GAO reported that 12,945 Americans were killed in car crashes where the negligent driver was drunk in 2005. And the GAO reported that 27% of the total population in US prisons were illegal aliens that year. So .27 * 12945 = 3495 and 3495/365 = 10 per day. But that's still a lot.

And even if the 27% figure isn't accurate (apparently, we don't really know what it is), is the above estimate all that unreasonable considering data like this?

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2760050/

Nearly 300 illegal immigrants were convicted on driving-while-impaired charges and placed in North Carolina prisons in 2007. Hispanics also account for 18 percent of drunken-driving arrests, while making up less than 7 percent of the state’s population, according to a study from the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center … snip … The study also showed that Hispanics involved in car crashes were 2.5 times more likely to be drunk than white drivers and three times more likely to be drunk than black drivers.

Given such statistics, King's estimate doesn't sound at all unreasonable. If hispanics are 2.5 times more likely to be drunk in car crashes than non-hispanics, and hispanics constitute 15% of the US population, then out of 12,945 deaths due to DUI each year, hispanics could account for nearly 5000 of those deaths. So 3500 of them being due to illegals is not an impossibility … although I'll admit that's probably on the high side.

Quote:
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/securi...exico-wall.htm
I agree with that.

But that statement wasn't just talking about illegals. It was referring to legal immigrants. And yes, with that sort of disparity in income, there are likely to be many Mexicans who want to come to America. And I have no problem with that, as long as they do it legally with all the checks that should entail.

And if you ask me, I think the left is deliberately trying to muddy the difference between illegal and legal immigrants. This is not a law aimed at legal immigrants. How can it be since it's the same as the federal law. Yet the MSM and democrats continue to try and portrary it that way. Neither is a fence aimed at stemming anything but ILLEGAL immigration. But that hasn't stopped the left from portraying it as against immigration in general. Dishonest.

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

Like that is supposed to prove something? That cost is a drop in the bucket. Just look at the cost of those 2000-4000+ murders that illegals commit every single year. Or just look at the cost of incarcerating the 267,000 illegal criminals that were actually in US prisons in 2003. According to the government the average cost of housing a prisoner is $25,000 a year, so just incarcerating those people costs nearly $7 billion every single year. And that doesn't include the cost of the crimes they committed (the damage they did, the lives they took or destroyed), the cost of apprehending them, the cost of trying them, and the cost of monitoring them after release. Nor does it include costs from the other 250,000 illegal criminals that are not incarcerated and are out there committing crimes every day. Just reduce the number of illegal criminals by 25 to 50%, and you'd more than pay for any conceivable fence in just a few years.

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.

We've built even bigger projects in even more remote locations. You seem to be looking for any excuse to ignore the obvious and excuse the indefensible. It that all in the name of bringing in illegals who you expect to eventually become democrat voters? Hmmmmmm?

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

The left couldn't care less about the environmental damage NOW being done in border states on both sides of the border by millions of illegals flooding through those areas.

http://www.desertinvasion.us/reports/hull_border_env_damage.html

 

[DDWW]

Ha! I knew it. All the good stuff was hidden so this Michigan boy would find tarantulas, dead armadillos, scorpions, and leather-faced women.

Your reverse psychology has worked. I must now go there. Will you have cold tequila?

Please go to Kewpi's @ Lansing and bring me some olive burgers when you come!

DDWW

 

[eeyore1954]

Some energy officials in AZ are talking of cutting off power to LA because of the boycott.

I thought it was more like they were telling Los Angeles to go ahead and boycott and start by boycotting the power they get if they truly have the resolve and conviction.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64I6UA20100519?type=domesticNews

Arizona official dares L.A. to cut power supply

"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."...

Pierce told Reuters in an interview that his letter was not intended as a threat because Arizona officials could not legally terminate the power agreements on their own.

"They own that power, they could negotiate to rid themselves of that power, it's a benefit to Los Angeles," he said. "If you're going to divest yourself, divest yourself all the way. So swallow deep, mayor and city council, and do it. Or back off and let's be friends again."

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Ya know, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't like it if other states tried to bully my state into changed an internal law.

Oh well, the good news for Arizona is that all the stink this has raised has probably made it to where it won't have to actually enforce this law much. Illegals will probably avoid the state now for fear desert gulags for those without papers, regardless of the truth of the matter. Those illegals instead will go up through California, New Mexico or Texas, instead.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ya know, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't like it if other states tried to bully my state into changed an internal law.

Oh well, the good news for Arizona is that all the stink this has raised has probably made it to where it won't have to actually enforce this law much. Illegals will probably avoid the state now for fear desert gulags for those without papers, regardless of the truth of the matter. Those illegals instead will go up through California, New Mexico or Texas, instead.

Which makes this the perfect time for the Minutemen to man the border and point out, yet again, who isn't doing their job.

Good fun.

DR

 

[pipelineaudio]

Which makes this the perfect time for the Minutemen to man the border and point out, yet again, who isn't doing their job.

Good fun.

DR

Hey, ANY excuse to go four wheeling in some of the most beautiful country on earth and look for rare reptiles

 

[Arisia]

My town is pretty close to halfway between Boston, that chose to boycott, and Worcester, that chose not to boycott.

Of course, I doubt whether the boycotts are useful at all. I'm thinking most illegals will find a crossing spot in CA or NM instead. Actually, does Arizona have any laws cracking down on the employers of illegals, or do they leave that to the Feds? Plus I think the extra pressure this puts on local law enforcement (now they have to be INS agents, too!) is unfair.

 

[Darth Rotor]

My town is pretty close to halfway between Boston, that chose to boycott, and Worcester, that chose not to boycott.

Of course, I doubt whether the boycotts are useful at all. I'm thinking most illegals will find a crossing spot in CA or NM instead. Actually, does Arizona have any laws cracking down on the employers of illegals, or do they leave that to the Feds? Plus I think the extra pressure this puts on local law enforcement (now they have to be INS agents, too!) is unfair.

You might want to consider how many illegals are working in your state, as might the MA state legislature. It isn't just in CA, NM, AZ and TX, you know.

My brother in law in VA could tell you a story or two.

DR

 

[pipelineaudio]

Actually, does Arizona have any laws cracking down on the employers of illegals, or do they leave that to the Feds?

The law is only 16 pages, have a look at it.

The short answer is yes, AZ has many laws against hiring illegals. Without the legal ability to ask for proof of residency, it can enforce none of them, unless the employers calls the police on himself

 

[Arisia]

The law is only 16 pages, have a look at it.

The short answer is yes, AZ has many laws against hiring illegals. Without the legal ability to ask for proof of residency, it can enforce none of them, unless the employers calls the police on himself

Just as with the drug problem, the best way our nation can affect this situation is by working on reducing the demand side of the equation, in my opinion. Of course, that means some Americans will need to take jobs that they don't want rather than taking Unemployment Benefits, and employers will need to actually offer the mandated minimum wage for those jobs, since the jobs will be filled by American citizens, not far more exploitable illegal immigrants.

 

[Arisia]

You might want to consider how many illegals are working in your state, as might the MA state legislature. It isn't just in CA, NM, AZ and TX, you know.

My brother in law in VA could tell you a story or two.

DR

There have been INS raids in Massachusetts, certainly. Not long ago there was a raid down in New Bedford I think, and I wonder how it turned out for the families where the parents are illegals, but their young children are US citizens (born here, citizen here, as it should be, imo). I wonder how the employer made out after the raid, too.

 

[WildCat]

Just as with the drug problem, the best way our nation can affect this situation is by working on reducing the demand side of the equation, in my opinion. Of course, that means some Americans will need to take jobs that they don't want rather than taking Unemployment Benefits, and employers will need to actually offer the mandated minimum wage for those jobs, since the jobs will be filled by American citizens, not far more exploitable illegal immigrants.

I love the way people pretend illegals usually work for less than minimum wage, and that minimum wage is somehow A God Thing^TM.

This isn't true. What is true is that for any given job they will work for less than a legal worker would, thus dragging down wages.

Do people really think it's a good idea to fill low-skill jobs with cheap imported labor while low-skilled Americans sit at home and collect welfare, housing assistance, Medicaid, and food stamps? And that the workers filling those jobs for cheap also put a strain on social services, because they simply don't make enough money to pay medical expenses or even food and housing? And no, minimum wage doesn't pay the rent.

How is this good for the US and particularly the US economy? Wouldn't it be better if employers had to pay higher wages or even (gasp!) benefits to attract workers?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Minimum wage is a "God Thing"? That's the first I've ever heard of it.

 

[marplots]

Do people really think it's a good idea to fill low-skill jobs with cheap imported labor while low-skilled Americans sit at home and collect welfare, housing assistance, Medicaid, and food stamps?

YES!

This was exactly why robots were supposed to be a good deal. (And, yes, I am ticked off at the lack of the promised robots.) We awaited the utopia where there was buckets of free time on our hands to pursue creative endeavors. I cannot help it if, as a society, we turn out to be lazy mutts.

This also probably explains why the Internet is so well attended. Thank you Mexicans! Thank you for JREF. Now get busy and build me a robot.

 

[INRM]

Marplots,

I don't know if it's a good idea to use robots to replace human workers entirely. Machines obviously have advantages, but I don't think it would be good to put all humans out of business. First of all, without work, people don't generally make money. If we were to derive our money from welfare instead of through our own labor, I don't think it's good to produce a nation of lazy people. Now, I'm not opposed to welfare, I think it has a very important use for people who cannot work, or have through bad luck, or lack of intelligence, have accidentally dug themselves into a hole that they would have inordinate difficulty digging themselves out of. I just don't think it's wise to depend too heavily on welfare, especially if you are capable of working.

There is of course the greater danger that when sufficiently intelligent machines are produced and fielded in that they could decide to take over, they could even decide to eradicate us.

 

[marplots]

There is of course the bigger danger when sufficiently intelligent machines are produced and fielded -- they could decide to take over.

You're bummin' me out man. I'm requesting intelligent, benign machines that keep me fat and happy. I want the nanobots to clean my arteries and repair damage to my liver; the helper bots to handle all the minor, irritating chores around the house; the sex-bots; the industrial robots to build the roads and bridges; the chauffeur bot... in short, the whole gamut.

Necessity may be the mother of invention, but by God, the father is my innate and fundamental striving to become as lazy as possible. After all, as Jesus (or someone) once said, "Give me life. Give me love. Give me slack."