Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[Region Rat]

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 your drug problem is worse than our drug problem? Then you should explain why it is our duty to help you with yours. You don't need borders to have illegal drug issues, or gangs involved in them.

What specifically did I say that made you form this tirade against me?

Did I say anything about "filthy foreigners" taking our jobs?
Did I say anything obout those "hated foreigners" not contributing to society?
Did I say anything about "damn foreigners are taking all our jobs and ruining our economy"?
Did I say anything about "gang violence and all the other nonsense" and "evil mexican drug gangs?"
Did I say anything about "Drug problems"? How would you get "Maybe you'd like to show me how your drug problem is worse than our drug problem?" from anything I posted?

You've thrown up a whole load of straw at me, my friend. It would be nice if you would tone down the rhetoric.

I said: "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. "

I admit it was a quick one liner, but in the context of your European example, it has to do with Mexico becoming economic equals of the US, where an open border and free transfer of people will not affect the economy of either country. That is not the case when one country has wages that are depressed so the population would rather pick up stakes and move to another country to get higher wages in the most backbreaking jobs available, and still be on the very low end of the US wage scale. Does this seem equitable to you?

 

[Region Rat]

You say that as if the topic of this thread weren't a drastic change in policy proposed by the Arizona law.

Explain please? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Manopolus]

What specifically did I say that made you form this tirade against me?

Did I say anything about "filthy foreigners" taking our jobs?
Did I say anything obout those "hated foreigners" not contributing to society?
Did I say anything about "damn foreigners are taking all our jobs and ruining our economy"?
Did I say anything about "gang violence and all the other nonsense" and "evil mexican drug gangs?"
Did I say anything about "Drug problems"? How would you get "Maybe you'd like to show me how your drug problem is worse than our drug problem?" from anything I posted?

You've thrown up a whole load of straw at me, my friend. It would be nice if you would tone down the rhetoric.

I said: "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. "

I admit it was a quick one liner, but in the context of your European example, it has to do with Mexico becoming economic equals of the US, where an open border and free transfer of people will not affect the economy of either country. That is not the case when one country has wages that are depressed so the population would rather pick up stakes and move to another country to get higher wages in the most backbreaking jobs available, and still be on the very low end of the US wage scale. Does this seem equitable to you?

Sorry that I didn't make that clear. I actually have no problem with anything you've said so far. The situation IS different, and I don't condone moving to the European system at this time, although I do like their system better than ours in an ideological sense.

You also asked why the rant? I suppose the rest could have been in part an attempt to answer that question, and a continuation of earlier remarks. I am quite aware that you didn't make those arguments I am ranting against. There are no strawmen here... people have actually made the opposing arguments. I can give you specific examples, if you'd like (minus the coliquial language, admittedly).

Also, I used "you" and "your" a bit erroniously in the last paragraph before editing... a simple slip of reference, my bad.

 

[Region Rat]

Sorry that I didn't make that clear. I actually have no problem with anything you've said so far. The situation IS different, and I don't condone moving to the European system at this time, although I do like their system better than ours in an ideological sense.

You also asked why the rant? I suppose the rest could have been in part an attempt to answer that question, and a continuation of earlier remarks. I am quite aware that you didn't make those arguments I am ranting against. There are no strawmen here... people have actually made the opposing arguments. I can give you specific examples, if you'd like (minus the coliquial language, admittedly).

Hey, no problem. I've got no problem with the rant. It was just that it seemed to be directed at me.

To be clear, I've got no problem with immigration. I'm 2nd generation on one side and 3rd generation on the other side of my family. Half through Ellis Island and half through Philly. But they followed the law at the time and became citizens as soon as possible.

I have a problem with people openly flouting the laws we have, and demonizing the US for having those laws in the first place, when other countries have just as strict immigration laws as we do. It should be easier to become a legal citizen, but the fact is, until the US congress gets off of its fat political rear end and changes it, the law in place is the law that we need to enforce. In my mind, deciding not to enforce, or selectively enforcing, or poorly enforcing the laws is not acceptable. And even if we make it easier to become a citizen, we will still need border security to prevent the illegal activity, so we might as well get than under control now.

Regarding the European system, however, there is still immigration and passport requirements to get into the union, even though you can move freely within it. So, even though those countries chose to allow free travel within their playground, they still watch the borders around the playground.

 

[Manopolus]

Regarding the European system, however, there is still immigration and passport requirements to get into the union, even though you can move freely within it. So, even though those countries chose to allow free travel within their playground, they still watch the borders around the playground.

It might be interesting to note (though this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, mind you) that my time in Europe was actually before the European Union. Individual countries had such policies long before the EU. Again, it's an aside... I just thought I'd clarify.

 

[Region Rat]

It might be interesting to note (though this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, mind you) that my time in Europe was actually before the European Union. Individual countries had such policies long before the EU. Again, it's an aside... I just thought I'd clarify.

Thanks, didn't know that. I've been to Germany a few times and the UK once, and had to go through the passport control rigamarole, but I never traveled between countries once I got there.

 

[Neally]

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.

Short term, due to the economy, yes. Longer term, UP. Ignoring the longer term trend due to a temporary down turn is foolish.

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.

Federal law requires the federal government to respond to immigration status requests.

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.

Your frequent comments asking if AZ has the right to do something on the federal level which they clearly don't have the right to do is not adding to the discussion here. The question was posed and responded to from an obviously national level.

 

[Manopolus]

Short term, due to the economy, yes. Longer term, UP. Ignoring the longer term trend due to a temporary down turn is foolish.

Here's the actual numbers:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/azcrime.htm

Please read over them and then explain to me how what you just said about "long term rates" is true. Maybe if you go back to 1960, you could find a trend like that (if you ignore per capita, and the fact that there were fewer laws to break at the time, and less enforcement)... but since at least 1990 -- and actually before, this is not the case. Per capita, the crime rate was worse in the 80s than it is in this decade. Admittedly, I didn't get out a calculator and do averages... but a glance at the numbers doesn't suggest to me that crime is going up in Arizona in recent history.



OK, I don't have the illegal immigration numbers, if that's what you are claiming. However, that's not due to the economy ONLY. It's due to ALREADY INCREASED ENFORCEMENT, as well. And yet your state governer claims that the evil Obama administration is refusing to enforce the law. Nevermind the fact that he is enforcing it to a greater degree than previous administrations.

Federal law requires the federal government to respond to immigration status requests.

Yes, but sending such request for EVERY PERSON ARRESTED and anyone even SUSPECTED, not otherwise subject to arrest... is an intentional overload of the federal system. Also note that there's a few civil rights issues here. Suddenly, if you are suspected of being here illegally you can be detained indefinitely while we check your immigration status? This could leave perfectly innocent U.S. citizens rotting in jail for DAYS due to the backup in the system or a temporary glitch, etc. What if the guy doesn't happen to remember his social security number? It is not a crime for a U.S. citizen to leave the house without identification and look like an immigrant. Do you think it's always a simple matter of looking it up on a computer screen? Exactly how do we know this person is who he says he is if he's never been arrested before, and therefore we have no fingerprints on file?

The screwed up part is that even as things stand, the I.C.U. has mistakenly "deported" U.S. citizens to Mexico in some rare cases. Overloading the system would likely make such mistakes more common.


Please note that the law is not uniformly enforced ANYWHERE along the spectrum, in any case. A man fleeing a house fire who happens to be naked will not generally be arrested for public nudity... although in some states, those laws would technically apply. Being homeless is technically against the law in many cities, but they don't exactly go out on raids to arrest people for such. The authorities are allowed to exhibit discretion in how they enforce the law. In this case, the authority is the federal government, not the state of Arizona.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Here's the actual numbers:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/azcrime.htm

Please read over them and then explain to me how what you just said about "long term rates" is true. Maybe if you go back to 1960, you could find a trend like that (if you ignore per capita, and the fact that there were fewer laws to break at the time, and less enforcement)... but since at least 1990 -- and actually before, this is not the case. Per capita, the crime rate was worse in the 80s than it is in this decade.

I think you are lacking perspective. On the very link you provide it tells us Arizona is #2 for property crime rates, #3 for auto theft, between 2 and 6 for larceny, and between 2 and 5 overall. Quite frankly, I really don't care all that much about the in-state trend when the rate remains one of the highest in the country. An in-state decline doesn't even begin to become useful unless you also can look at the percentage of illegals. Arizona has experienced tremendous *legal* growth over the last couple of decades. Three million more people live here than in 1990. If X percent of legal citizens commit crimes and 2X percent of illegals (just as an example) commit crimes, then an influx of legals will result in a downward trend in crime rates.

More importantly, it's irrelevant to this thread. If you think the current immigration laws at the federal level are bad, then those laws should be changed through the legislature, not via selective enforcement or decrees by courts.

If you want to argue that crime does not increase with the number of illegal aliens, then you need to do a lot better than in-state trends. I've posted elsewhere statistical correlations between the types of crimes listed above and southern border states. Maybe there's another explanation. We'd have to look at the number of illegals actually committing those crimes.

And guess what? Arizona's law would tell us that information since it would require police to investigate the immigration status of everyone arrested.

 

[Manopolus]

And guess what? Arizona's law would tell us that information since it would require police to investigate the immigration status of everyone arrested.

I'm pretty sure it's already out there. I have yet to find it on the 'net, but my origional understanding of the trends came from a televised news source. I don't remember the exact details, but one of the statistics listed specifically pertained to crimes committed by illegals, and showed it as being down in each of the past 5 consecutive years.

I'll keep looking, but search engines don't seem to be very reliable when I'm using them... they give me all the crapola and none of the legit, unfortunately.

Yes, certain crimes always are a bit more pervasive in border states... especially between two nations that are not particularly cooperative or even equal. We actually can't change that, in my opinion. The trend will be there no matter what we do. It's not just the illegals coming over here, it goes the other way too. Our fugitives will attempt to flee justice by going to Mexico just as much as theirs will come here. Stolen property is not nearly as easily tracked once it has crossed a national border. The laws are not the same on both sides. These issues are going to be there whether we try to get tougher about them or not. My statistics are meant to show that this isn't exactly an emergency. These issues have always been there, and always will be... although with time, they might slowly get a little better.

That's exactly why immigration and the border are a federal issue, rather than a state one... and precisely why Arizona is wrong, in fact, to preclude the juristiction of the federal government. Would you prefer that the feds just pull out entirely (including funding) and let Arizona hadle it on their own? That's what they seem to be trying to do -- handle something on their own which is not precisely within their juristiction. Apparently the only thing they want from the federal government is money.

Well, if you get money from the feds, the feds get to determine not only how much, but how it is spent... because as a resident of another state, that's MY money as much is it is anyone's in Arizona. The law appears to be nothing more than an attempt to hijack federal funds which have not been appropriated through the proper channels. The governer, herself has actually said that... though not in so many words. Her contention is that the federal government has not been doing the job to Arizona's satisfaction. Therefore, suddenly Arizona has the right to force the federal government to do what Arizona wants them to do. This is a blatent admission that the state is operating outside its own juristiction... and she tries to justify it by claims that the government is negligent (which I don't think is the case, but it would be legally irrelevant, anyway).

Excuse me, but we did NOT elect this woman to be President of the United States. That is the job she is attempting to do, apparently.

 

[Neally]

Yes, but sending such request for EVERY PERSON ARRESTED and anyone even SUSPECTED, not otherwise subject to arrest... is an intentional overload of the federal system.

The AZ law doesn't mandate that the immigration status be checked of every person arrested. Regardless, there is no limitation in the federal law that requires all inquiries on immigration status be responded to.

 

[Manopolus]

The AZ law doesn't mandate that the immigration status be checked of every person arrested. Regardless, there is no limitation in the federal law that requires all inquiries on immigration status be responded to.

Hmm... borrowed that bit from somewhere or other... looking at the law now, and admitedly nothing yet. It's possible I may have misread something or repeated a very loose interpretation.