jbrettlip wrote:But if they are suspected of committing a crime, they should. It doesn't have anything to do with carrying papers.
You are missing a BIG part of this. There is no necessity that there is any suspicion of another crime. That they might be here illegally IS all the suspicion that is needed. Therefore, you can be walking down the street, doing absolutely nothing wrong, not look like anyone who just committed a crime or anything else that might, in other states, give police a reason to stop you. In Arizona, now, you can STILL be stopped and if you don't have papers, then you can be hauled into jail. Not only does this law place a new requirement on citizens, but you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
I went and read the statute, not just the reports on it, and you are right. I think they screwed up majorly in writing it that way. Unless I am reading it wrong, which is possible since I am not a legal expert. I still don't think it will lead to mass arrests and harrassment due to the courts and headline risk. And I think the law itself is a good idea, but I stand corrected in the fact that the police CAN stop anyone for any reason to ask for proof of citizenship. Player:1 jbrettlip:0
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
Nobunaga wrote:... Interesting side note. 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the new law.
... Arizona is but 50% White.
... I suppose the minorities in favor are naught but "Uncle Toms", eh. (is there a Spanish equivalent to Tom?)
...
That would be Uncle Tomas'
Ole! Honibazo
is there anything more racist than thinking an entire race should think the same way?
Absolutely. Thinking an entire race DOES think the same way is definitely worse than thinking an entire race SHOULD think the same way.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
b.k. barunt wrote:That was really a stoopit observation Woodruff. Just sayin . . .
Do you disagree with my statement? If so, why? Don't just call it stupid...explain why it's stupid.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote: Patterns and behavior, lets stick with the issue. Whats wrong with observing patters and behavior?.
Well, my father is probably a good example.
Despite my mother's best efforts he is, well... a slob. He also has an accent. He is a naturalized citizen who came here fully legally. However, his mannerisms and such are not, in all ways "American". Its hard to put your finger on particular things, but most people who grew up among immigrants probably have an idea.
When he flies through a large airport, he is ALWAYS one of those "randomly" picked out for an extra search.
Being a man, he often does carry his wallet with him, but not always.
So, who could be "targeted". Folks like my father. Folks who are law-abiding almost to a fault. (its not something they brag about, it just is who they are). Folks who also don't happen to "fit" in what many folks think "law-abiding citizens" should look like.
Nah, he will just go to prison for 27 years for not having his wallet on him......right? Oh, the police have computers nowadays?
No, my mom will find him missing and will raise #@@##. A wallet is not proof of citizenship. But, even if it were, the point is a citizen should not be put in jail when they have committed no crime. Until now, not carrying citizenship-proving ID wasn't a crime.
yes, but as usual, you miss this very simple point. a wallet is where most people keep their papers..... ........
Phatscotty wrote: Patterns and behavior, lets stick with the issue. Whats wrong with observing patters and behavior?.
Well, my father is probably a good example.
Despite my mother's best efforts he is, well... a slob. He also has an accent. He is a naturalized citizen who came here fully legally. However, his mannerisms and such are not, in all ways "American". Its hard to put your finger on particular things, but most people who grew up among immigrants probably have an idea.
When he flies through a large airport, he is ALWAYS one of those "randomly" picked out for an extra search.
Being a man, he often does carry his wallet with him, but not always.
So, who could be "targeted". Folks like my father. Folks who are law-abiding almost to a fault. (its not something they brag about, it just is who they are). Folks who also don't happen to "fit" in what many folks think "law-abiding citizens" should look like.
Nah, he will just go to prison for 27 years for not having his wallet on him......right? Oh, the police have computers nowadays?
A citizen of this country should not have to be hauled to the police station simply because "you don't have your papers with you, sir".
you are missing all the facts and jumping to conclusions. why? you can't really think the way you explain it is the way it's going to be???
Even aside from that. Let's just say that they do accept driver's license as proof of citizenship in Arizona, as an example. Let me connect a few dots.
First, let's look at the cost and results. Even if this law is implemented reasonably, the way you claim, it will place a greater burden on local police. A whole class of what were informants are now not going to report anything. They will work to hide crime (they won't want to, but fear will force it). Extra resources are now dedicated to arresting workers here illegally. In a few cases, this will cause extreme harship for employers, particularly in agriculture, because citizens simply refuse to do the work. Maybe with the economy as bad as it is, that will change. However, farmers were already having trouble getting lettuce and other highly perishable crops harvested last year, just with border tightening.
A lot will leave on their own, taking children who might well be citizens. Children who now won't get a real education, but who will return as citizens anyway.
Net result -- higher cost for police, poorer enforcement, kids left uneducated, employers who would prefer to hire legally, but plain cannot are hurt.
But, how did we even get to where we are now?
Why were so many illegal aliens let in here? Why have so many quite conservative presidents not just allowed, but virtually encouraged illegal aliens (sometimes while denouncing them in rhetoric!) to come, particularly from Mexico?Reagan is a classic example, legalized all who had been here x number of years.
Why? Because they provided cheap labor, labor that would not "fuss" about "silly safety regulations" and so forth, and, particularly, workers that could not unionize.
So, illegals were welcomed because they made all kinds of people a LOT of money and made a bunch of people a little money. Note that in some cases, agriculture in particular, there really were few other options. The prices paid farmers are low and the conditions not considered premium. A lot of that work is seasonal.
What changed? Why all of a sudden are illegal aliens the villians? Well, look at Walstreet. Except, Walstreet cannot really be touched by most people. Illegal workers, though ... THEY are nearby. They are ready targets. They did not cause the mortgage mess, they did not boost everyone's credit interest rates, they did not steal money from people's 401Ks, lie to investors or do any of the other "dirty tricks" that lead to t his mess. They simply work. They work, they raise kids, they do their best like any of us. They are not so lucky. That lack of luck, being born south, does not translate into responsibility on our part to hire them. However, it does rather put a dent in this idea of their being these horrible criminals that don't deserve basic human dignity, even.
BUT, they can be blamed. Wallstreet, even the bankers.. folks may yell and scream, but will much be done? NO!
Now, here is the thing. Let's say that the real problem was that these folks were not paying taxes and taking jobs from legal citizens. (that is a big part of the rhetoric). The first, the "not paying taxes" is actually false. Illegal aliens often do pay taxes, and social security, etc. Those that work "under the table" even pay most local taxes, sales taxes and so forth. BUT, and this is important, it is not their choice to pay no taxes. Talk to them and you won't find a lot of "diss the government" attitudes from them! That is the attitude of citizens! The choice to not pay taxes is the choice of the employer. The employer who's whole purpose is to save money. He is happy to stiff the government. Many times, he is happy to stiff workers as well, though even illegal aliens only tolerate so much of that. (some employers, of course use violance, but those are the extremes, the rarities and the true criminals -- a whole seperate set of people).
If the goal were to recoup taxes lost, then what is the logical recourse? To attack those who cheat.. namely the employers.
Let's say the problem is simply that there are too many citizens not getting work because of all the illegal aliens. Again, the best solution, the easiest, the cheapest to implement is to fine and tax employers who hire illegally. OR, even eliminate the whole "illegal" bit and simply place extra taxes on hiring non-citizens and reward non-citizens who pay those taxes, who report employers who do not. Sure, you would get cheaters, but if the fines and taxes were proportioned correctly, it would generate money, instead of costing money. Workers would become allies, not enemies.
I love how the left only wants to criticize the cost, when it is the cost of ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING! If we can not afford to enforce our own laws, then just start calling us Mexico now
Phatscotty wrote:I love how the left only wants to criticize the cost, when it is the cost of ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING! If we can not afford to enforce our own laws, then just start calling us Mexico now
The left pays more attention to LONG TERM costs. The right looks primarily at the immediate.
For example, the left would say that it is worth spending money for schools and head start, because it will result in fewer adults who wind up in jail or who cannot get work, thus winding up with more taxpayers and a lighter tax burden. The right will say spending more money on prison is necessary, and the kids will just have to wait until the economics is better.
But.. I am already guilty of spinning to many threads off. I just find it very ironic that one of the most "anti-government" poster, in general, is suddenly willing to forgo all that, to hand police far more powers, simply because it seems quicker than charging the employers who hire them.
Phatscotty wrote:I love how the left only wants to criticize the cost, when it is the cost of ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING! If we can not afford to enforce our own laws, then just start calling us Mexico now
The left pays more attention to LONG TERM costs. The right looks primarily at the immediate.
For example, the left would say that it is worth spending money for schools and head start, because it will result in fewer adults who wind up in jail or who cannot get work, thus winding up with more taxpayers and a lighter tax burden. The right will say spending more money on prison is necessary, and the kids will just have to wait until the economics is better.
But.. I am already guilty of spinning to many threads off. I just find it very ironic that one of the most "anti-government" poster, in general, is suddenly willing to forgo all that, to hand police far more powers, simply because it seems quicker than charging the employers who hire them.
sorry player. i usually dont do this, but your first statement, at least to me, is so incorrect, I can not read the rest. right is short term?
Phatscotty wrote:I love how the left only wants to criticize the cost, when it is the cost of ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING! If we can not afford to enforce our own laws, then just start calling us Mexico now
The left pays more attention to LONG TERM costs. The right looks primarily at the immediate.
For example, the left would say that it is worth spending money for schools and head start, because it will result in fewer adults who wind up in jail or who cannot get work, thus winding up with more taxpayers and a lighter tax burden. The right will say spending more money on prison is necessary, and the kids will just have to wait until the economics is better.
But.. I am already guilty of spinning to many threads off. I just find it very ironic that one of the most "anti-government" poster, in general, is suddenly willing to forgo all that, to hand police far more powers, simply because it seems quicker than charging the employers who hire them.
sorry player. i usually dont do this, but your first statement, at least to me, is so incorrect, I can not read the rest. right is short term?
Yep, because the right is overly concerned with business and short-term economics (note economic projections beyond a year or two go down to perhaps a 10% success rate, according to most economists themselves).
Of course, you don't see it that way, because you have been taught to pretty much ignore externalities and very long term impacts. Its OK to pollute, and worry about consequences later.
Just keep using oil, new sources will be found ... later.
Well... its "later"...and we don't have a lot of solutions.
I think this law will only attack the symptom, not the problem. The problem is, among other things, the fact the Federal Government won't do anything to curb illegal immigration to start with. So the State has had to take it into their own hands. If the Feds would do their job, and keep the illegal immigrants out, then the Business's couldn't hire them, they wouldn't be here so you wouldn't have to pay for them....there wouldn't need to be this law....
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
... Such typical leftist bullshit "reporting". Who is Racheal Maddow? Is that supposed to be news or is that a Hannity style show?
... Love the part where she says, "And police can demand paperwork from anybody who may look to be an illegal immigrant". (with a knowing look, obviously meaning "anybody not white").
... It's no wonder the left is so f*cking twisted when this is what they digest every day.
bedub1 wrote:I think this law will only attack the symptom, not the problem. The problem is, among other things, the fact the Federal Government won't do anything to curb illegal immigration to start with. So the State has had to take it into their own hands. If the Feds would do their job, and keep the illegal immigrants out, then the Business's couldn't hire them, they wouldn't be here so you wouldn't have to pay for them....there wouldn't need to be this law....
I agree that this doesn't attack the problem, but if you think the "problem" is our not living in a military compound... sorry, no.
The problem is that there are too few methods to allow LEGAL HIRING of people who are willing to do jobs that citizens too often just won't, COMBINED with too few penalties for those employers who really could hire citizens, but would rather stuff their pockets. (through both low wages and cutting corners in places like safety).
bedub1 wrote:I think this law will only attack the symptom, not the problem. The problem is, among other things, the fact the Federal Government won't do anything to curb illegal immigration to start with. So the State has had to take it into their own hands. If the Feds would do their job, and keep the illegal immigrants out, then the Business's couldn't hire them, they wouldn't be here so you wouldn't have to pay for them....there wouldn't need to be this law....
I agree that this doesn't attack the problem, but if you think the "problem" is our not living in a military compound... sorry, no.
The problem is that there are too few methods to allow LEGAL HIRING of people who are willing to do jobs that citizens too often just won't, COMBINED with too few penalties for those employers who really could hire citizens, but would rather stuff their pockets. (through both low wages and cutting corners in places like safety).
Sooo....Business's are evil?
If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
bedub1 wrote:I think this law will only attack the symptom, not the problem. The problem is, among other things, the fact the Federal Government won't do anything to curb illegal immigration to start with. So the State has had to take it into their own hands. If the Feds would do their job, and keep the illegal immigrants out, then the Business's couldn't hire them, they wouldn't be here so you wouldn't have to pay for them....there wouldn't need to be this law....
I agree that this doesn't attack the problem, but if you think the "problem" is our not living in a military compound... sorry, no.
The problem is that there are too few methods to allow LEGAL HIRING of people who are willing to do jobs that citizens too often just won't, COMBINED with too few penalties for those employers who really could hire citizens, but would rather stuff their pockets. (through both low wages and cutting corners in places like safety).
Sooo....Business's are evil?
No, but putting immediate interests above long term needs is.
Or, to clarify, individually, businesses cannot help but look at the immediate. It is how they do business, make money. The problem is when their needs are put above everyone else's. The problem is critical when folks become more concerned with immediate jobs and forget to look down the road. We have been ignoring the short term for quite some time.
Our economy has flourished based on growth, which was largely based on use of resources that are no longer so freely available. In the past, companies and our government has been willing to basically pillage other nations, poorer folks in this country. Those options are not so readily available now.
bedub1 wrote:If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
Yes, except I do think the route to citizenship needs to be more difficult than it currently is.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bedub1 wrote:I think this law will only attack the symptom, not the problem. The problem is, among other things, the fact the Federal Government won't do anything to curb illegal immigration to start with. So the State has had to take it into their own hands. If the Feds would do their job, and keep the illegal immigrants out, then the Business's couldn't hire them, they wouldn't be here so you wouldn't have to pay for them....there wouldn't need to be this law....
I agree that this doesn't attack the problem, but if you think the "problem" is our not living in a military compound... sorry, no.
The problem is that there are too few methods to allow LEGAL HIRING of people who are willing to do jobs that citizens too often just won't, COMBINED with too few penalties for those employers who really could hire citizens, but would rather stuff their pockets. (through both low wages and cutting corners in places like safety).
Sooo....Business's are evil?
If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
Many times, it isn't that Americans are too lazy to do the jobs, it's that Americans don't feel that the jobs compensate them sufficiently to do the job (whether it be pay, benefits, working conditions, whatever). Illegal immigrants simply aren't as picky about that sort of thing, because it's an improvement over what they have (don't have).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
bedub1 wrote:If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
Yes, except I do think the route to citizenship needs to be more difficult than it currently is.
You do? It's already a painfully long process...why make it worse? The whole process should be a matter of determining whether you're a criminal or not and if not...come on in.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
bedub1 wrote:If we take these illegal immigrants that are doing jobs citizens are too lazy to do, and make them legal immigrants or even citizens, then don't we end up with Americans doing jobs that Americans are too lazy to do?
Yes, except I do think the route to citizenship needs to be more difficult than it currently is.
You do? It's already a painfully long process...why make it worse? The whole process should be a matter of determining whether you're a criminal or not and if not...come on in.
So everyone here illegally is barred from ever coming in legally?
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
