Arizona immigration law goes into effect......

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

And who's claiming that the federal government should do nothing, ever, even the things that the constitution authorizes it to do? I still don't understand why that's inconsistent. When someone argues that the federal government is a bloated, corrupt, inefficient mess, that doesn't mean that they think it should disband the military and stop protecting the borders. I think even the most "anti-government" people are for a strong military, because that's a primary role of the federal government.

I have no dog in this fight, but I do believe that is what Libertarians endorse.

[Karlifornia]

Give me your tired, your poor, as long as they aren't brown.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

That's definitely a huge factor. And even though the Constitution says that Congress has the power to establish nationalization laws, I'm sure the Supreme Court would find some crazy 14th amendment right to citizenship if you're born here.

Yeah, so crazy it's only explicitly written in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Give me your tired, your poor, as long as they aren't brown.

What, there's some pro-illegal-Russian immigration lobby I've missed?

If there were as many illegal German immigrants as there were illegal hispanics then someone could have smeared a swastika on the window with sauerbraten but until then, that's an empty argument for those who simply want to excuse illegal activity.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interstate 35 is called the 'Mexican Pipeline' or 'Mexican Highway' by a lot of people in the Midwest for this very reason. It's a direct North/South route between Canada and Mexico that allows illegal immigrants to get away from the border as quickly as possible and settle in areas like Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota.

Wait. Are you Bubba Wheels?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What, there's some pro-illegal-Russian immigration lobby I've missed?

If there were as many illegal German immigrants as there were illegal hispanics then someone could have smeared a swastika on the window with sauerbraten but until then, that's an empty argument for those who simply want to excuse illegal activity.

Shockingly, I agree with the sentiment (if not the salty language) of Jon's post.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Shockingly, I agree with the sentiment (if not the salty language) of Jon's post.

Wait? That was salty?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wait? That was salty?

I suppose not. Just covering all my bases - and I didn't want to give the impression that I 100% agreed with you - what would people think?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I didn't want to give the impression that I 100% agreed with you - what would people think?

Just claim the "stopped clock" exemption & you should be gtg.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just claim the "stopped clock" exemption & you should be gtg.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, so crazy it's only explicitly written in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment!

Well, certainly "crazy" was going way too far. And I thought I must have been smoking crack but did remember:

Short version from wiki:

"The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship."

and

"There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment. During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding Indians, who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull."

...

The Supreme Court later held that the 14th amendment did indeed exclude Native Americans from citizenship (though they got citizenship later via congressional Act). and that people born to non-citizens who were lawfully in the U.S, were U.S. citizens pursuant to the 14th amendment. They Supreme Court hasn't taken that final, inevitable step yet, but yes, it was stupid of me to say it was "crazy", considering the text.

So I don't think this can be changed by law, it will take an ammendment.

[ISiddiqui]

I think there was more of an argument for Native Americans not being subject to US jurisdiction due to the weird legal status of reservations... but that's a nitpick.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Wow, comparing the illegal Irish to the border problems.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

To your first point, why are you even posting here then?

Why is anyone? No one here is really impacted by this except for lungs from what I've read.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

As to your "funny" point, you're the one labeling this as federal government needs to be bigger. They're seeing the feds need to do this better, not "bigger". Advocating that the feds do their job more efficiently and wisely with respect to immigration doesn't mean these posters have abdicated their right to believe that the federal government as a whole needs to be smaller.

It would only be hypocrisy/nonsensicle if they stated they wanted the government to do everything it's doing now, add new border responsibilities and expect to have smaller government.

Basically, to me, it looks like you're just going out of your way to take pointless and irrelevant partisan shots in a thread that doesn't really need that.

Most who have advocated for better border protection are not saying that. They want more patrols, better equipment, and more fences. I don't see many people saying that it's all about efficiency or a pep talk. Most experts have said that there simply aren't enough resources being put into this area.

It's a heavy political issue. I don't think it's irrelevant to point out that it goes against everything that party has railed against over the last year. I was just confused as to why that side of the aisle is for the federal government to put more into it when I've been told the federal government is too big and doesn't do anything right.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Seriously, as long as you have a country as wealthy as the USA bordering a vastly less wealthy country such as Mexico, which is all that separates us from an even less wealthy region such Central America, you are going to have massive attempts at emigration from the poorer regions to the wealthier regions.

I'm curious if there is any other countries that have the same scenario as us. A very wealthy country bordered by a really poor one. Off the top of my head I couldn't think of any.

It's kind of a crazy dynamic we have. I'd love to read more into why we became so much more succesful than Mexico.

[cartman]

So, Sarah Palin was on Hannity's show, saying how the "lamestream media" just doesn't get it regarding Arizona's new law, and as an example she mentioned where she saw a banner that said "it makes it illegal to be an illegal" on one of the newscasts.



Take a wild guess where that came from.

Spoiler

[molson]

I can't watch the video right now, but did she really say "lamestream media"?

God damn it I hope she runs for president. It would be an entertaining ride. She's just something else.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why is anyone? No one here is really impacted by this except for lungs from what I've read.


Most who have advocated for better border protection are not saying that. They want more patrols, better equipment, and more fences. I don't see many people saying that it's all about efficiency or a pep talk. Most experts have said that there simply aren't enough resources being put into this area.

It's a heavy political issue. I don't think it's irrelevant to point out that it goes against everything that party has railed against over the last year. I was just confused as to why that side of the aisle is for the federal government to put more into it when I've been told the federal government is too big and doesn't do anything right.

You're still not getting it. One does not have to do with the other. Even if they say "more, more, more" instead of "better", you're logic still doesn't work.

I'll spell it out.

Government today is Size A. Included in Size A is current immigration policy I.

Obamacare == The Big O. Big O is also included in Government Size A.
Given--> Big O >>>> I such that 2I is still <<< Big O

Republicans will willingly advocate an increase in I, let's say to the 2I I have above. That's the "more, more, more".

Republicans will cut Big O.

End result of Government is Size B.

Size A == Other Stuff + Big O + I

Add I to get 2I
Subtract Big O

You get...

Size B == Other Stuff + 2I (No Big O)

Size A >>> Size B i.e. Governemnt shrinks, while immigration spending goes up.

I have said it three times now-- arguing for a rise in immigration spending and smaller government are not mutually exclusive, nor are they hypocritical.

And I'll state again, you saying so shows you're willing to ignore basic logic and math all in an effort to incorrectly attack the other side of the aisle. Pretty pathetic, IMO.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actually, there's decent proof there's thousands of illegal Irish in Boston and New York, but nobody ever brings them up when talking about illegal immigration. But yes, there is the simple fact we had a pretty open immigration policy in this country for centuries until people started coming in that didn't look like us and then we closed the doors for 40 years.

Wait, when did we "close the doors"?

Actually, 40 years ago is when we started letting more of the people that didn't look like us in. The Immigration and Nationality Act got rid of Euro-friendly quotas, which led to an explosion of legal immigration from Mexico, and Asia.

And some numbers:

(from wiki)

-In 2006, the U.S. accepted more than twice the number of refugees than the next 9 countries combined.
-A record 1,046,539 people were naturalized in the U.S. in 2008

We're very generous when it comes to legal immigration. Always have been. And we're tolerant of illegal immigration. Always have been. More so than any of the liberal paradise European countries you always cite. Are you saying the status quo is fine? Or should we just get rid of the idea of citizenship? Everyone in the world can be considered an American!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You're still not getting it. One does not have to do with the other. Even if they say "more, more, more" instead of "better", you're logic still doesn't work.

I do get it. I understand everything you pointed out. I'm just saying that is not the rhetoric being spouted. No one is saying we need to cut some areas but increase others. It's been a non-stop onslaught of government. Even if you cut other areas, you are still expanding a portion of government and making it bigger.

Lets take health care. The talking points have been how the government can't do it well because they are essentially incompetent in this field. That it involves the expansion of government which costs us more money which is bad. Those same reasons can be pointed to border patrol. It's an area the government has never done well in and it would cost us more money.

What is hypocritical is that these people don't want smaller government, just different government. The only way to make a smaller government and cut our spending is to drastically cut our defense, social security, medicare, and veteran benefits. Tell me how many people on that side of the aisle are going to be in favor of that? Because if you aren't for cutting those things, you aren't for smaller government.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No one is saying we need to cut some areas but increase others.

Sure there are. I think everyone says this.

Let's flip this around. If you're for the role of federal government expanding in the issue of health care, does that mean you have to be for them expanding their role in 100% of imaginable issues such as immigration enforcement, or you're a hypocrite?

You're taking one random buzz word you're vaguely familiar with, 'small government", and using it to attack anyone who disagrees with you on this. Which I guess is better than SteveBollea thinking everybody who disagrees with him is a racist, but I don't think many take him seriously anymore.

Was it you that said that if someone is for more efficient government, they're a hypocrite if they use public roads or call the police? Why isn't it hypocritical to want the federal government to stay out of immigration enforcement, but be involved in every other facet of our lives that person wants to control?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Finally, in the very long-term, like when me and you are worm food and our grandkids are old is we're going to probably need a one-world government to fully expand as a human race. Human is human to me.

Well a one-party, one-nation world is certainly ideal if you're the one in power and agree with everything they do.....It sucks for everyone else though.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Let's flip this around. If you're for the role of federal government expanding in the issue of health care, does that mean you have to be for them expanding their role in 100% of imaginable issues such as immigration enforcement, or you're a hypocrite?

No, because I'm not running around screaming about how I want big government and them to take over everything.

Originally Posted by molson

You're taking one random buzz word you're vaguely familiar with, 'small government", and using it to attack anyone who disagrees with you on this. Which I guess is better than SteveBollea thinking everybody who disagrees with him is a racist, but I don't think many take him seriously anymore.

I don't disagree with you or Chief Rum on the issue. As I've said half a dozen times, I'm for stricter enforcement of our borders. You keep coming at me like I'm the opposition in this.

Originally Posted by molson

Was it you that said that if someone is for more efficient government, they're a hypocrite if they use public roads or call the police? Why isn't it hypocritical to want the federal government to stay out of immigration enforcement, but be involved in every other facet of our lives that person wants to control?

No, I have pointed out how silly the socialism claims are in a society that is heavily socialized in things we all want (roads, military, police, fire, etc). That it's humorous to see signs at rallies that say "Keep the Government out of my Medicare".

You're not a hypocrite if you don't go around stating opposite ideals all the time. If Ron Paul started proposing new government departments to be created, I would call him a hypocrite. If Bernie Sanders calls for the disbanding of the FDA and that the private sector should handle all food and drug testing, I'd call him a hypocrite.

When you claim to want small government, you need to back it up. As I stated, to get small government, you have to cut social security, Medicare, veteran benefits, or your defense budget. They are by far the overwhelming majority of our spending. But people don't want to cut that stuff on either side of the aisle. It makes a great talking point to scream about small government, but unless you actually have something you want to cut to make it that way, you're a hypocrite.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Well a one-party, one-nation world is certainly ideal if you're the one in power and agree with everything they do.....It sucks for everyone else though.

Probably not the right thread, but...

Why would one nation = one-party?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, Sarah Palin was on Hannity's show, saying how the "lamestream media" just doesn't get it regarding Arizona's new law, and as an example she mentioned where she saw a banner that said "it makes it illegal to be an illegal" on one of the newscasts.

Take a wild guess where that came from.

MSNBC?

MSNBC News Flash: Arizona Law 'Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant' | NewsBusters.org

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, I have pointed out how silly the socialism claims are in a society that is heavily socialized in things we all want (roads, military, police, fire, etc). That it's humorous to see signs at rallies that say "Keep the Government out of my Medicare".

We're not Libertarians. We believe the government should be there for national defense and public safety. Roads are an interesting conundrum for me, as I don't know that the Federal Government needs to be involved, but the Interstate Highway System was sure a boon when it first went in (as a Defense project I might add). Of course I also live in a state that wastes billions on roads without really improving them.

We do not believe the government is there to make everyone not poor, or to fix every little problem folks have, which is where socialism comes in. Folks need to stand on their own two feet. Or we believe that the states and cities should handle more of this. I don't believe the Federal government belongs in education, for example, and the more involved they get the more they screw it up.

Borders fall under the defense and national security areas for me, where I think the Federal government SHOULD be spending money.

There is no contradiction in the two attitudes you describe above AT ALL. Yet you keep harping on them.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

MSNBC?

MSNBC News Flash: Arizona Law 'Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant' | NewsBusters.org

Headlines like that make me laugh a little. Wait? Doing something illegal is a crime? When did that start?

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Headlines like that make me laugh a little. Wait? Doing something illegal is a crime? When did that start?

SI

Yeah, I just posted it mainly to diffuse the 'Fox is stupid' post by cartman. I think most of us are mature enough to know by now that there's plentiful amounts of stupidity in all areas of our media and our general population.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, Fox just pumps out a vastly disproportional amount of it

SI

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yeah, I just posted it mainly to diffuse the 'Fox is stupid' post by cartman. I think most of us are mature enough to know by now that there's plentiful amounts of stupidity in all areas of our media and our general population.

LOL

You missed the point entirely.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

LOL

You missed the point entirely.

No, I didn't miss anything. Palin is stupid and FoxNews and MSNBC are woefully partisan. You can mix all parts of that along with the irony of Palin working for FoxNews. In the end, it adds very little to the discussion other than partisan stupidity. I thought this discussion was about the immigration law. Obviously I was mistaken.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I thought this discussion was about the immigration law. Obviously I was mistaken.

Oh, no. Here comes the MBBF as the misunderstood intellectual purist...


Give it a fucking break. A big part of the discussion is how various points of the media are framing the debate. Or are you trying to insinuate all of the debate is being formed independently in a vacuum?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Oh, no. Here comes the MBBF as the misunderstood intellectual purist...


Give it a fucking break. A big part of the discussion is how various points of the media are framing the debate. Or are you trying to insinuate all of the debate is being formed independently in a vacuum?

I don't really care about what the media is framing because I (along with most in this thread) are smart enough to sort out the stupidity. Anyone who allows the media to frame their opinion gets what they deserve.

My only mistake was responding to your post, because as usual, you've gone on a foul mouth tirade as opposed to discussing things like an adult. I apologize to everyone else in the thread for my misstep.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I accept your apology MBBF.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't really care about what the media is framing because I (along with most in this thread) are smart enough to sort out the stupidity. Anyone who allows the media to frame their opinion gets what they deserve.

[cartman]

That was a foul-mouthed tirade? LOL

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, I'll be blunt. There would be far less a fervor in many circles over illegal immigration if the people crossing the border were white and spoke English as a first language.

(unfortunately) Bingo.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

As far as white goes, weren't there significant immigration issues amongst Europeans in the 1800s?

As far as English goes, I think the non-assimilation of the current immigrants IS part of the problem.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

As far as white goes, weren't there significant immigration issues amongst Europeans in the 1800s?

As far as English goes, I think the non-assimilation of the current immigrants IS part of the problem.

I'm willing to bet Italians (for instance) had the same problem. Didn't speak English, didn't (initially) assimilate into the "mainstream" culture.

The difference today is one of scale. There are many more illegal Mexicans and other Central Americans in the U.S. today than illegal (or even legal) Italians back then, and they're in enclaves across the country. Plus, thanks to our media, the problem is made to seem urgent even to people in areas of the country who have never met a Mexican, even a legal alien one.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Plus, thanks to our media, the problem is made to seem urgent even to people in areas of the country who have never met a Mexican, even a legal alien one.

Any places of note? I cited the highway example earlier, but I think most people would be shocked at the number of illegal aliens in the Midwest, especially in the northern Midwest states. Perhaps you're speaking of somewhere else.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

We closed the doors in the early 20's because there was entirely too much immigration for Catholic Southern/Eastern European Catholics for Protestant America. It was then reopened in the 60's thanks to that evil America-hater Ted Kennedy.

As far as refugees and naturalization goes, pure numbers don't matter. Give me percentages. After all, we have the highest foreign aid by total, but one of the lowest by percentage.

In addition, I'll be the first one to say the immigration policies of many European countries suck and we shouldn't be copying them like those on the right want us too. I guess it's only nuclear power and being scared of brown people that conservatives want us to copy from Europe.

Finally, in the very long-term, like when me and you are worm food and our grandkids are old is we're going to probably need a one-world government to fully expand as a human race. Human is human to me.

In short, you are one of the people on the road to serfdom. Enjoy living in distopia!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cartman

That was a foul-mouthed tirade? LOL

These are foul mouthed tirades:

[Noop]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, I'll be blunt. There would be far less a fervor in many circles over illegal immigration if the people crossing the border were white and spoke English as a first language.

I wanted to say this when the issue was first posted but I did not want to be labeled a racist or whatever Molson and Co. like to label me.

[molson]

So the people that have no, or minimal problem with illegal immigration - would it be ethically OK for me to swing over to Home Depot Sunday morning in a pickup truck, pick up a half-dozen or so of the illegal Mexicans/South Americans who hang out there waiting for undocumented work, pile 'em in, and pay them 50 cents an hour or whatever to fix up my yard? I mean, that's why they're here, right? For us to exploit.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

I wanted to say this when the issue was first posted but I did not want to be labeled a racist or whatever Molson and Co. like to label me.

That's not racist, though it's simplistic and ignorant of history.

Simplistic, but certainly true. I have no doubt that the race of illegal immigrants causes some people to get more fired up than they would otherwise be. But that's a misdirection. It has nothing to do with a practical discussion, unless someone wants to treat illegal immigrants of different races differently.

The fact that some people are racist dosn't mean that illegal immigration is OK.

[Arles]

I do think race is a part of this, but it's not the main reason. I've worked at places (we have a lot of hourly positions) with India/Pakistan immigrants, African American Caribbean immigrants, Japanese immigrants and Mexican/Central American immigrants. The one thing I've found is that two things give immigrants more acceptance in our society:
1. Attempt to come into the country legally
2. Speak English competantly

Most of the India/Japan/Caribbean immigrants I've met have gotten 2/2 on that above setup and that's why there's less of a backlash against them. And, last I checked, none are considered "white".

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

I do think race is a part of this, but it's not the main reason. I've worked at places (we have a lot of hourly positions) with India/Pakistan immigrants, African American Caribbean immigrants, Japanese immigrants and Mexican/Central American immigrants. The one thing I've found is that two things give immigrants more acceptance in our society:
1. Attempt to come into the country legally
2. Speak English competantly

Most of the India/Japan/Caribbean immigrants I've met have gotten 2/2 on that above setup and that's why there's less of a backlash against them. And, last I checked, none are considered "white".

There is another dynamic at play here as well. These are people you and your colleagues interact with on a regular basis, not some nebulous "those people". There is always going to be a different reaction between people you are familiar with and those who are unknown.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I do get it. I understand everything you pointed out. I'm just saying that is not the rhetoric being spouted. No one is saying we need to cut some areas but increase others. It's been a non-stop onslaught of government. Even if you cut other areas, you are still expanding a portion of government and making it bigger.

Lets take health care. The talking points have been how the government can't do it well because they are essentially incompetent in this field. That it involves the expansion of government which costs us more money which is bad. Those same reasons can be pointed to border patrol. It's an area the government has never done well in and it would cost us more money.

What is hypocritical is that these people don't want smaller government, just different government. The only way to make a smaller government and cut our spending is to drastically cut our defense, social security, medicare, and veteran benefits. Tell me how many people on that side of the aisle are going to be in favor of that? Because if you aren't for cutting those things, you aren't for smaller government.

So you're basically arguing with a hypothetical caricature of someone who claims that they want smaller government in every single area, no matter what, across the board, every single time, but makes an exception for illegal immigrants (and presumably military).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

There is another dynamic at play here as well. These are people you and your colleagues interact with on a regular basis, not some nebulous "those people". There is always going to be a different reaction between people you are familiar with and those who are unknown.

Indeed. I tend to find that people who, say, work in the restaurant business are more accepting of Mexican immigrants than those who don't simply because they work with them more often. It's one of the reasons that during the Prop 8 debate in California, there was a movement to convince gay people to come out to their friends because once you personally know a minority you tend to have better views of them.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

I do think race is a part of this, but it's not the main reason. I've worked at places (we have a lot of hourly positions) with India/Pakistan immigrants, African American Caribbean immigrants, Japanese immigrants and Mexican/Central American immigrants. The one thing I've found is that two things give immigrants more acceptance in our society:
1. Attempt to come into the country legally
2. Speak English competantly

Most of the India/Japan/Caribbean immigrants I've met have gotten 2/2 on that above setup and that's why there's less of a backlash against them. And, last I checked, none are considered "white".

Yet, if you go down a checklist of traditional "core American values" (say, family, hard work, religion, freedom, among others), I'd venture to guess that the ethnic group who most embraces and demonstrates these are Hispanic/Mexican Americans. Go figure.