New Arizona Immigration Enforcement Laws

im not strongly against it. i think its politically untimely because there are more important things for dc to be doing. and i strongly believe placing tough restrictions on hiring illegal immigrants will be more effective.

but there is no net job loss in the US because of illegals.

" Most economists agree that the wages of low-skill high-school dropouts are suppressed by somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent because of competition from immigrants, both legal and illegal. Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants.

Illegal immigrants seem to have very little impact on unemployment rates. Undocumented workers certainly do take jobs that would otherwise go to legal workers. But undocumented workers also create demand that leads to new jobs.

But economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive. Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration. "

Q&A: Illegal Immigrants and the U.S. Economy : NPR

i would have no problem moving to one because of crime. i may not want to move there for a variety of other reasons though.

 

Details, son. Details. You accuse but you don't back it up. I'll be happy to defend myself.

 

Dont worry about, it shouldnt matter to you, right "voice of reason" cause you're so right about everything, why waste time defending yourself on anything.

 

That's true.

 

exactly,

the vanity of the self-described...lol

 

Undo fear? Well that's mighty white of you. As I said before, I'm humbled by your incredible courage and astonishing self-sacrifice for involuntarily imposing burdens on Mexican citizens.

This law is special because, whether intentional or not, it targets a specific group of citizens for harassment without sincere concern for mitgating it's obvious impact. Why do you object to adding reasonable safeguards that allow racial profiling to be monitored, detered, and give recourse to it's victims? If the safeguards were added, I would still advocate going after the employers first, but I could accept the bill as an honest and fair attempt to deal with the problem.

Why are the safeguards needed? Police are human. Many will have the same bias against illegals as you do. They will respond to politics and the body politic is pissed at illegals. Many will be, hell they currently are, overzealous. Unless you want to punish Mexicans, safeguards limit the impact on real citizens. Ever hear of the Civil Rights movement? It's just a different group of people that is being abused. Why can't we apply what was learned?

Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's unreasonable to involuntarily impose burdens on a group of citizens because of their race. I think it's unreasonable to state racial profiling won't happen simply because the law says so. I think it's unreasonable to minimize and dismiss voluminous real racial profiling complaints that's happening under conditions where you say it will minimally happen. I think it's unreasonable to argue safeguards are unnecessary in the face of these realities. I think these things are unreasonable in the face of viable alternatives. I think it's unreasonable to equate illegal Mexican immigration with border security for terrorism. On this issue, I don't think you are reasonable.

I only care about the impact of the policies you advocate and your efforts to mitigate negative consequences of those policies. Clearly, the policies will negatively impact Mexican citizens, and you seem to wish the impact away, like if you wish for a pony, you will get it. I don't know you and hate is a strong word, but you surely do have a strong contempt for Mexicans' rights.

I think speeders should follow the law, but they don't. I think speeders shouldn't evade justice either, but the law doesn't screw with non-speeders in order to obtain justice. So yes, as I've said repeatedly, I think Mexican Nationals should follow the immigration laws and I think if they are identified they should be arrested and deported, but I don't think the constitutional rights of citizens should be violated to do it. Why do you oppose our constitution, the supreme law of our land?

I have advocated for an effective and efficient immigration policy by taking a holistic rational approach. Here is something that I came across this morning. A "corner policy" is what I'm arguing against.

Police are humans with human foibles. Safeguards are needed to restrain excesses.

Some professional police organization must have some standard of professional safeguard practices. If not, one could be developed. What's so insuccinct by including "all jurisdictions shall be required to implement Standard xyz."

Yes, it's an assumption, but the way to refute that assumption is to point me to the public results of statewide racial profiling monitoring efforts and internal reviews of racial profiling or race discrimination complaints. Wishful thinking isn't fact. You won't get that pony by simply wishing for it. I'm sure well meaning people are doing all those things. Process is important, but show me results, not activities.

Ultimately, this kind of transparancy would be good for the police. It would rid the departments of those who don't have the right stuff, and over time, it would improve the trust with groups that have a hard time believing that the police is there to help them, and this would help the police do their jobs.

I think you understate the severity of the racial profiling problem. I don't think the severity of the illegal alien problem is enough to justify abusing citizens. In this sense I think you overstate the illegal alien problem.

Trivia question:

Place these states in highest to lowest order based on estimated illegal alien population: AZ, IL, IN, and LA

Explain Arpaio. Show me the public results of statewide racial profiling monitoring efforts and internal reviews of racial profiling or race discrimination complaints.

Not this shyte again. I can only communicate MY understanding of YOUR position in MY terms. YOU can only get a sense of MY understanding if I interpret YOUR writings. Copying and pasting verbaitim is no indication of understanding. I asked you to correct my interpretation; I even said please. Why can't you write a similar concise summary of your position (and mine if you want) so we can explore the differences (although I've already spent too much time on this) and filter out each other's hubris and hyperbole. If you're so concerned about my thought waves getting into your brain, put on an extra piece of tin foil.

I'm so hurt! Nah! You know, I'm really better at this than you.

When you said "identifying ones self to the police requires a legal ID, not verbal assurance," I thought your position was that a physical ID is always required in all instances. What other choice could there be if it has to be a legal ID and not verbal? Telepathy?

This is somewhat analogous to discussing the pros and cons of various recruits or players. Many times someone discussing the cons appears to be trashing a recruit when that isn't the case at all. I have an enormous amount of respect for these guys. I truly respect them for the risks they take in dealing with the scum of society and not letting it effect their dealings with the rest of society. I have never had a bad experience with the police nor do I ever expect to.

However, I won't sit in denial and pretend that many people over time haven't had bad experiences. This illegal immigration issue is fraught with emotion; a passion that can easily lead to overzealous behavior towards people who have done nothing to deserve it. Our constitution is nothing but words on a piece of paper. It's value comes from what we collectively believe it means. If we don't believe that those words apply equally to all citizens, then it's value is not as great as we think.

The dishonesty is taking the quote out of it's overall context. It's all wrapped up in how the law would work for a traffic stop where an innocent passenger only provides verbal assurance of his ID. Would the officer detain him, or not until his legality is established. What would be the basis if he did detain him? I'll concede that due to you avoiding the question for a few posts, the context may be a bit cloudy, but that's no reason for your continued paranoia.

Even if he was a red headed viking looking dude with a LA accent? How about giving an example of identifying one of the vast majority of illegals who haven't just crossed the border?

 

every adult is supposed to carry an id at all times when not in their house. Watch Rambo.

 

Barack! is that you?
aren't there millions of unemployed americans that could do these jobs?

 

could but wont. white people dont go out in the fields and pick tomatoes or whatever for a few dollars. they would rather collect unemployment.