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

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

""""""""""""""""""""""". Yes, Yes, a thousand times yes.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

I guess it would be ironic, then, that I am for more secure borders and taking a hardline on illegal immigration, despite the fact I have been working in the restaurant business for close to 20 years, and doubtless know more "brown" people than most here.

Naw, I'm probably just racist. Or so it would seem to be suggested by some here anyway.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Legal Immigration = Yes
Illegal Immigration = No

Path to Citizenship for existing Illegal Immigrants = Yes
Zero-tolerance (excepting amnesty and other previously defined cases) after that = Yes
Migrant or Guest-worker policy = Yes

Been reading this discussion with interest and probably my favorite post is this one.

I hate and I do mean hate that I agree with number three. It's just going to be too hard to deport all of them back. I'll agree to it with a disclaimer - the existing immigrants have a VERY limited time frame to register, pay taxes and become legal.

The only thing I would add is that zero tolerance policy applies to corporations as well. If they knowingly hire illegals, there should be some serious hell to pay. (and prison sentences to be served)

I'm for limited government, but I think one of the governments core jobs is to protect the borders. Right now we are doing a pathetic job of that and we are going to be very lucky if it doesn't bite us in the ass sometime soon. The governments failure to take care of this issue (both the R's and the D's) has made it to where states take matters into their own hands.

I know Jon would probably cringe to hear me say this, but if Obama had said during his election run that the border was a priority and that a high priority of his office would be to clear that up, I'd probably have voted for him.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Been reading this discussion with interest and probably my favorite post is this one.

I hate and I do mean hate that I agree with number three. It's just going to be too hard to deport all of them back. I'll agree to it with a disclaimer - the existing immigrants have a VERY limited time frame to register, pay taxes and become legal.

The only thing I would add is that zero tolerance policy applies to corporations as well. If they knowingly hire illegals, there should be some serious hell to pay. (and prison sentences to be served)

I'm for limited government, but I think one of the governments core jobs is to protect the borders. Right now we are doing a pathetic job of that and we are going to be very lucky if it doesn't bite us in the ass sometime soon. The governments failure to take care of this issue (both the R's and the D's) has made it to where states take matters into their own hands.

I know Jon would probably cringe to hear me say this, but if Obama had said during his election run that the border was a priority and that a high priority of his office would be to clear that up, I'd probably have voted for him.

Thanks Troy!!

I agree, the window to take advantage of the "Path to Citizenship" should be very short. I'm thinking like "Get to a federal building, or state/local government building, or police station, within the next 30 days to register for the Program or you're on the next bus back across the border."

[Arles]

Originally Posted by digamma

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.

I don't think Hispanics here illegally are bad people, I just think we need to have a harder stand again illegal immigration. I am close friends with four people who came over from India and the effort they put into finally becoming legal was impressive. Letting people from Mexico hop over the border and basically enjoy the same freedoms they have is a big slap in the face.

I'm still trying to figure out when being in favor of making it harder for people here illegally to stay here suddenly became a "racist" viewpoint. It's almost like saying people who are against DUI offenders are against small businesses (most bars are small businesses and making it tougher for people to drink and drive could hurt their bottom line).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm still trying to figure out when being in favor of making it harder for people here illegally to stay here suddenly became a "racist" viewpoint.

Obviously it's designed to win votes. It's an example of dirty politics--happens on both sides of the isle--with the intention of shutting down legitimate debate.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actually, every study has shown that Hispanic immigrants have shown the same arc that all other large-scale unskilled mass immigrations follow.

1st generation, mostly foreign speaking.
2nd generation, a mix.
3rd generation, mostly English speaking.

After all, there's a reason that the Chicago police used to have a whole staff of Polish and Italian transalators and no longer do so.

Right, and to prove the relevancy of your point, you'll see most signs in America are subtitled in Spanish, Polish, and Italian.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Obviously it's designed to win votes. It's an example of dirty politics--happens on both sides of the isle--with the intention of shutting down legitimate debate.

I get what you are saying here. Both sides usually throw in garbage to shut down a legitimate debate.

In this case, I've always been confused as to why it's a debate and why anyone with a brain could pretend it is one.

1) It's a slap in the face to all of the people who come into the country, ya know, LEGALLY.

2) While many of them may have wonderful traits and be hard workers, SOME of them, like SOME of us are criminals and gang members. The lackadaisical approach we take to this rewards the bad guys.

3) It's an issue of border security in an era of terrorism.

I know this thread is a debate on this law. Quite frankly, I don't give a crap about this law. Good or bad, I don't think it accomplishes much. This is about more than this law. This is about the government doing the basic job of a government. This is really a litmus test for me. If someone can't get this one right, I have a difficult time listening to anything else they say. Call that disrespect or going over the top if you like, but I feel more strongly about this topic than any other.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by 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.

How is giving someone a job that they are willingly looking for exploiting them? These people are sitting in the Home Depot parking lot because they need money to support themselves or their family. Are you telling me they are better off not working at all?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

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

I agree to an extent. Our federal government should be protecting us from Mexico rolling tanks in Texas or Arizona and taking over major cities. I think our government probably does a solid job of protecting our borders from a foreign invasion quite well. I don't believe that Mexico could get too far into our borders without meeting a strong resistance.

But we aren't talking about war or their miltary attacking us. We are talking about some broke Mexicans with nothing more than a jug of water and the clothes on their back. Not exactly the Israeli Special Forces.

[lungs]

My grandmother was third generation born here and didn't learn to speak English until she started elementary school.

Those damn Swiss refused to integrate.

Whereas my Norwegian relatives were ashamed of those that didn't learn to speak English.

Anyway, being a 'patron' I get invited to a lot of Latino social events locally. So I see lots of anchor babies running around and noticed they are mostly speaking English with each other.

If the kids go to school here, they will learn English. Now getting those English speaking children to finish school is another story. Broad generalization and I'm not sure if it's just a local cultural phenomenon but they seem to decide that it's time to work at age 16-17.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree to an extent. Our federal government should be protecting us from Mexico rolling tanks in Texas or Arizona and taking over major cities. I think our government probably does a solid job of protecting our borders from a foreign invasion quite well. I don't believe that Mexico could get too far into our borders without meeting a strong resistance.

But we aren't talking about war or their miltary attacking us. We are talking about some broke Mexicans with nothing more than a jug of water and the clothes on their back. Not exactly the Israeli Special Forces.

I can assure you that our government and our military is not prepared for any sort of initial assault from Mexico, but I'm sure we'll beat them by the end of the week. But seriously, 400,000 unknown entities are coming across our borders every year? I have no doubt that a majority of them are coming here to earn some sort of money because it's got to be cheaper to be a freeloader in Mexico than in America. So again, I'm very appreciative of the work they do.

However, it is also true that very bad people are coming across that border and they are bringing drugs and they are involved in human trafficking of women and folks that arrive in America and work illegal are abused and taken advantage at will. We can complain about a police officer abusing civil rights, but illegal aliens have got to be abused exponentially more by the reality of the situation than they ever have been by police officers.

The laws that Arizona is putting up are designed to help the people not to hurt them. Shipping illegal aliens back to Mexico is hurting the cheap goods the good folks of Illinois and Massachusetts take for granted, I understand the dilemna of the white male Democrat (to throw in some dirty politics) but this is not an issue for Arizona.

It's our national border with Mexico. It's a federally and internationally recognized border. It's not Mexico vs Arizona. It's Mexico vs USA.

The reason President Obama doesn't want any part of this isn't because he believes it's an Arizona-only border, or that he thinks civil rights aren't being abused, or that he hates Mexicans...it's because it will hurt him at the polls.

The best way forward is to close the border, secure it from the current flow of half a million trespassers per year and then offer citizenship to the folks that are here. Not because they deserve it more than the people that are waiting patiently around the world to get into America, but to resolve the current civil rights crisis allowing all these undocumented people into the country has caused.

[CleBrownsfan]

Found this pretty humorous:

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The laws that Arizona is putting up are designed to help the people not to hurt them.

I really hope this is spin and you aren't foolish enough to believe it. Show me where the writers and supporters of this bill talk about how their main concern is helping immigrants.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I can assure you that our government and our military is not prepared for any sort of initial assault from Mexico, but I'm sure we'll beat them by the end of the week. But seriously, 400,000 unknown entities are coming across our borders every year? I have no doubt that a majority of them are coming here to earn some sort of money because it's got to be cheaper to be a freeloader in Mexico than in America. So again, I'm very appreciative of the work they do.

However, it is also true that very bad people are coming across that border and they are bringing drugs and they are involved in human trafficking of women and folks that arrive in America and work illegal are abused and taken advantage at will. We can complain about a police officer abusing civil rights, but illegal aliens have got to be abused exponentially more by the reality of the situation than they ever have been by police officers.

The laws that Arizona is putting up are designed to help the people not to hurt them. Shipping illegal aliens back to Mexico is hurting the cheap goods the good folks of Illinois and Massachusetts take for granted, I understand the dilemna of the white male Democrat (to throw in some dirty politics) but this is not an issue for Arizona.

It's our national border with Mexico. It's a federally and internationally recognized border. It's not Mexico vs Arizona. It's Mexico vs USA.

The reason President Obama doesn't want any part of this isn't because he believes it's an Arizona-only border, or that he thinks civil rights aren't being abused, or that he hates Mexicans...it's because it will hurt him at the polls.

The best way forward is to close the border, secure it from the current flow of half a million trespassers per year and then offer citizenship to the folks that are here. Not because they deserve it more than the people that are waiting patiently around the world to get into America, but to resolve the current civil rights crisis allowing all these undocumented people into the country has caused.

I'm fine with everything you said. I'm just saying that your concerns don't sound like a national security issue to me. If your biggest issue is that some people come in and commit crimes, then wouldn't closing the borders to every country legal or not be a solution?

As I've said a dozen times in the thread, I have no problem with Arizona making whatever laws they feel they need to make to solve their problem. I don't have a problem with the federal government putting more border patrols or resources down there either. You don't need to convince me on border security.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm just saying that your concerns don't sound like a national security issue to me.

Seriously? Running drugs across the border, gang murders and violence, human trafficking, none of that sounds like a national security issue to you?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

Found this pretty humorous:

If only. If only.



From 0:45 to 1:00

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Seriously? Running drugs across the border, gang murders and violence, human trafficking, none of that sounds like a national security issue to you?

Why are we letting people from Eastern Europe and South America into the country at all? They do all of those things and are here legally to boot. Or what about the Middle East? Those guys flew planes into a buildings.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why are we letting people from Eastern Europe and South America into the country at all? They do all of those things and are here legally to boot. Or what about the Middle East? Those guys flew planes into a buildings.

I heard all the Eastern Europeans were settling in England...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why are we letting people from Eastern Europe and South America into the country at all? They do all of those things and are here legally to boot. Or what about the Middle East? Those guys flew planes into a buildings.

But they get screened when they come in. You don't think it's worth screening the several hundred thousand or more who stream over that southern border? You don't think it's a much easier entry point than any other? Why even bother screening folks who come in via airplane, car, or any other method if you're just going to let them walk in from Mexico?

[JPhillips]

NYT/CBS called me tonight to poll primarily on immigration and Catholic priest scandals. I'm on a list for a potential reporter interview in a few days.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

But they get screened when they come in. You don't think it's worth screening the several hundred thousand or more who stream over that southern border? You don't think it's a much easier entry point than any other? Why even bother screening folks who come in via airplane, car, or any other method if you're just going to let them walk in from Mexico?

Are you saying that the act of screening makes the person not a threat to national security?

And yes I do believe we should be screening people entering the country and making sure they are doing things by the book when they get here. I'm just pointing out that the national security outcry over the border is a fallacy.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Are you saying that the act of screening makes the person not a threat to national security?

And yes I do believe we should be screening people entering the country and making sure they are doing things by the book when they get here. I'm just pointing out that the national security outcry over the border is a fallacy.

How is it a fallacy when it's certainly possible that people who are willing to threaten the security of this country can use these border crossings as a way into the country? Seems pretty basic to me that security means protecting against danger, and it's a lot easier to protect from without than within.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

How is it a fallacy when it's certainly possible that people who are willing to threaten the security of this country can use these border crossings as a way into the country?

They can use legal ways to enter the country. In fact, that's what they have been doing. The 9/11 terrorist attackers and most of the thwarted terrorist attacks involved those who entered this country legally.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Seems pretty basic to me that security means protecting against danger, and it's a lot easier to protect from without than within.

If this is about national security and protecting ourselves, shouldn't we close all the borders? I mean if that is the goal, then we should be targeting those who enter legally as they are the ones who have committed the attacks. Those entering illegally are not committing these attacks that threaten our national security.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They can use legal ways to enter the country. In fact, that's what they have been doing. The 9/11 terrorist attackers and most of the thwarted terrorist attacks involved those who entered this country legally.

Securing the borders ain't closing them, dude. Monitor the legal ways. Eliminate the illegal ways. And surely you're not saying, hey, it didn't work that time, so why try, are you?

If this is about national security and protecting ourselves, shouldn't we close all the borders? I mean if that is the goal, then we should be targeting those who enter legally as they are the ones who have committed the attacks. Those entering illegally are not committing these attacks that threaten our national security.

First of all, it's about many things. National security is just one part.

And I'm not sure why you equate national security with "closing all borders". National security is a lot more complicated than that. You seem to be trying to limit the focus on one thing you think you can make look ridiculous to prop up your argument, but it is overly simplistic, doesn't truly represent the opposing argument and also doesn't represent reality. Of course, you do the straw man thing a lot, so I'm not surprised (you did the same thing with the "smaller gov't, more immigration spending" setup you were trying to set up earlier for partisan purposes).

Second, just because the 9/11 attackers got in legally, doesn't mean everyone who is a threat is getting here legally. I am sure such threats are getting here both ways. Just because the most successful attack came in through the front door, doesn't mean you just give up locking the back door.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Securing the borders ain't closing them, dude. Monitor the legal ways. Eliminate the illegal ways. And surely you're not saying, hey, it didn't work that time, so why try, are you?

First of all, it's about many things. National security is just one part.

And I'm not sure why you equate national security with "closing all borders". National security is a lot more complicated than that. You seem to be trying to limit the focus on one thing you think you can make look ridiculous to prop up your argument, but it is overly simplistic, doesn't truly represent the opposing argument and also doesn't represent reality. Of course, you do the straw man thing a lot, so I'm not surprised (you did the same thing with the "smaller gov't, more immigration spending" setup you were trying to set up earlier for partisan purposes).

Second, just because the 9/11 attackers got in legally, doesn't mean everyone who is a threat is getting here legally. I am sure such threats are getting here both ways. Just because the most successful attack came in through the front door, doesn't mean you just give up locking the back door.

If this is about national security as Dutch said, than we are focusing on the wrong areas. Illegal immigration is very far down the list of threats to our national security. There are a slew of countries that we accept people from that produce more crime and problems. In fact, illegal immigrants from Mexico commit crimes at much lower rates than the average American.

What I'm saying is that if you built the most high tech border security system and filled it with patrol agents that made sure not a single illegal crossed the border, we would not be any safer, nor would our crime rate go down. We may have a few more tax dollars in our pocket and whatever other financial implications take place, but that's about it.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If this is about national security as Dutch said, than we are focusing on the wrong areas. Illegal immigration is very far down the list of threats to our national security. There are a slew of countries that we accept people from that produce more crime and problems. In fact, illegal immigrants from Mexico commit crimes at much lower rates than the average American.

What I'm saying is that if you built the most high tech border security system and filled it with patrol agents that made sure not a single illegal crossed the border, we would not be any safer, nor would our crime rate go down. We may have a few more tax dollars in our pocket and whatever other financial implications take place, but that's about it.

Like I said, it's about many things. If you have a specific issue with what Dutch said, send him a PM. Illegal immigration isn't at the top of a list of national security priorities, yes, but border security is close to the top, and that affects illegal immigration. And this thread is about illegal immigration, not national security. If you want to have a separate discussion about national security, go start another thread.

We accept good people and bad people from all countries, including Mexico and Central America. It wouldn't surprise me to see that Hispanic immigrants commit crimes at lower rates (as I have said, I know many, and by and large, they are all hard working, honest people; in fact, the "criminal" type Hispanics I know are usually American citizens); that said, could you produce a link to a study showing that? Also, given the sheer volume of immigration (and in particular, illegal) from Mexico and Central America, rates matter little if the number of crimes committed still far outweigh those committed by other immigrant nationalities.

And I disagree, we would be safer with stronger border security, and if those few illegal immigrant criminals who have been getting in are no longer able to get in, crime from that group will indeed drop. Would it be fool proof? Of course not. But once again, you're stating if it's not perfect, why try. This is a ridiculous stance. Why try to do anything about anything then?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Like I said, it's about many things. If you have a specific issue with what Dutch said, send him a PM. Illegal immigration isn't at the top of a list of national security priorities, yes, but border security is close to the top, and that affects illegal immigration. And this thread is about illegal immigration, not national security. If you want to have a separate discussion about national security, go start another thread.

This goes back to my question about why those who had been advocated small government suddenly wanted big government. I was told it doesn't really count since it's for national security. I was just debunking the notion that this is really about national security.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

We accept good people and bad people from all countries, including Mexico and Central America. It wouldn't surprise me to see that Hispanic immigrants commit crimes at lower rates (as I have said, I know many, and by and large, they are all hard working, honest people; in fact, the "criminal" type Hispanics I know are usually American citizens); that said, could you produce a link to a study showing that? Also, given the sheer volume of immigration (and in particular, illegal) from Mexico and Central America, rates matter little if the number of crimes committed still far outweigh those committed by other immigrant nationalities.

There should be a lot of studies on it but this is just the first one I saw running a quick search.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN246261520080226

Rates actually matter the most. If you are judging crime by volume, it will always go up since our population is constantly growing. You would rather live in a town of 10,000 people where 10 people are murdered a year versus a town of 100 people where 10 people are murdered a year.

If you want to go by volume, we should be advocating strict laws on children like China has since we commit crimes at a much higher rate than illegals and thus every child we have is increasing crime.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And I disagree, we would be safer with stronger border security, and if those few illegal immigrant criminals who have been getting in are no longer able to get in, crime from that group will indeed drop. Would it be fool proof? Of course not. But once again, you're stating if it's not perfect, why try. This is a ridiculous stance. Why try to do anything about anything then?

I'm not stating that at all. I'm stating that I would like better border control, but it's not a pressing issue to me. It has little to no impact on any of us here.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Thanks Troy!!

I agree, the window to take advantage of the "Path to Citizenship" should be very short. I'm thinking like "Get to a federal building, or state/local government building, or police station, within the next 30 days to register for the Program or you're on the next bus back across the border."

I know you just threw a number out there, but I would be surprised if some states could process all the applicants in a 30 day period -- and by process, I mean clear the queue outside their door.

[Ksyrup]

This made me LOL:

Opponents of immigration law call for boycott of Arizona Iced Tea - but it is brewed in New York!

BY Helen Kennedy
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, April 28th 2010, 4:00 AM

Opponents of Arizona's new anti-immigrant law are calling for a boycott of the state's products - including the popular Arizona Iced Tea.

The problem: Arizona Iced Tea is actually brewed in New York.

Online, misguided tea fans vowed to switch to Lipton or Snapple.

"Dear Arizona: If you don't change your immigration policy, I will have to stop drinking your enjoyable brand of iced tea," Twittered Jody Beth in Los Angeles.

"It is the drink of fascists," wrote Travis Nichols in Chicago.

My mother-in-law works in one of their distribution offices in Jacksonville, FL. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but at one time they were owned by the "not Sly" Stallone part of the family. This is the same home office that, when my MIL's father died the same night as Ted Kennedy (and both in Massachusetts) and she told them she was going to have to take a LOA to attend the funeral, didn't express condolences, etc., but simply asked, "Your father was TED KENNEDY?!" Definitely NYers.

[JPhillips]

I think they should put, "The drink of Fascists" on the bottle.



"Anybody want a delicious Arizona Fascist Tea?"

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This goes back to my question about why those who had been advocated small government suddenly wanted big government. I was told it doesn't really count since it's for national security. I was just debunking the notion that this is really about national security.

Are you Trolling, or are you really interested? First you come out with this "everyone arguing for a smaller government must not want any government" BS line, when in fact we are trying to get the government out of areas they don't belong in so they can focus on areas they do. That means some areas get bigger (a natural fallout of the country getting bigger, at least population wise, such as police, fire, etc), while others get a lot smaller or go away entirely. You seem to have some huge issue figuring this part out.

Second, you really think that just letting anyone in whenever they want to come in won't hurt national security? You bring up the 9/11 hijackers, and some of them were flagged but not stopped, a loophole that's been closed. And we have stopped bombers at the border before; remember the guy with the trunkload of explosives stopped at the border around the millenium? We have guns and drugs and quite literally slaves being driven over that border with Mexico and you want to argue that shutting that down is not a big deal or part of improving our security? Really?

The fact that you don't want to make some simple logical leaps makes me think you're arguing just to argue. We can debate HOW to do these things all you want, but to try and argue that "smaller government" means I HAVE to be against protecting the border, and that protecting the border is absolutely NOT a national security issue, are two leaps that I have no clue how anyone could reasonably make.

[TroyF]

RainMaker:

1) I don't know how you can think having a secure border is worse than having an unsecure one. The government screwed up with the 9/11 guys. We know this.

2) Those crime studies cause me to laugh a bit. It's using stats based off of incarceration. Let's say the average American commits a major felony and wants to get away before an investigation heats up. How many know how to get smuggled across the border? How many of us have family or connections in another country who we could go back to? How many of us know how to get fake documentation to fool authorities?

They know the problems of our systems better than we do because they have to stay on the fringe of it all the time. Now, before this jumps into a "you're just being racist" bitch fest, I'm not. I don't care WHAT the number is. We should be doing everything we can to eliminate illegal entry into this country. I don't understand anyone who gives the opposite view of that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I know you just threw a number out there, but I would be surprised if some states could process all the applicants in a 30 day period -- and by process, I mean clear the queue outside their door.

Yeah, I just picked an example number. Make it 3 months, or 6 months or something. Point is it has a finite cutoff date.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by TroyF

We should be doing everything we can to eliminate illegal entry into this country. I don't understand anyone who gives the opposite view of that.

Everything? Is there no point where return on investment matters? I just don't see any way we can completely secure the border at a cost that makes sense. That's my problem with the "secure first, citizenship later" argument.

[ace1914]

National ID Card Included In Democratic Immigration Bill - Yahoo! News

Now look what you guys have done. Its a brave, new world.

[JPhillips]

If the Dems didn't exist you couldn't create a more tone-deaf, incompetent bunch of idiots.

[Arles]

I think some republicans are doing their best to top them

[JPhillips]

From a Yahoo story on MLB's concerns:

Take, for example, this scenario: An 18-year-old from Venezuela playing in the rookie league jumps in a friend’s car to head to the grocery store. The friend rolls through a stop sign. A police officer witnesses the infraction. The law, signed last week by Gov. Jan Brewer, requires that “where reasonable suspicion exists … a reasonable attempt shall be made … to determine the immigration status of the person.” The Venezuelan player, accordingly, is asked to furnish paperwork proving his legal residence, a new burden of proof under SB 1070. If he happens to have forgotten his passport and work visa at home, his friend would get a traffic ticket and the player would get significantly more.

“Under that scenario,” said Mike Philipsen, the communications advisor for the Arizona Senate Republicans, who drew up the bill, “he could be detained.”

[Dutch]

As an American, if I am in Berlin or Paris and am involved in a traffic stop and the police asks for my drivers license, passport, ID, whatever and can't produce any of it...what should happen?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Everything? Is there no point where return on investment matters?

I think it depends on your definition of "Everything we can do".

[Subby]

I bet that will be the last time that prospect leaves his passport or work visa at home.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

As an American, if I am in Berlin or Paris and am involved in a traffic stop and the police asks for my drivers license, passport, ID, whatever and can't produce any of it...what should happen?

US State Department Road Safety Overseas

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

National ID Card Included In Democratic Immigration Bill - Yahoo! News

Now look what you guys have done. Its a brave, new world.

Not bad. I'm not as freaked out by the national ID cards as everyone else. I don't know if this was in motion before the Arizona law, but I'm thinking not, or at least it really gained momentum after that. No matter the fate of the Arizona bill, at least it seems to be inspiring some movement on this from the other side.

Weird political timing though. You'd think they'd let the Republicans stew around for a while longer in the "you're racist for enforcing the border" rhetoric that has gotten so popular.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dutch

As an American, if I am in Berlin or Paris and am involved in a traffic stop and the police asks for my drivers license, passport, ID, whatever and can't produce any of it...what should happen?

They'd probably detain you to determine your citizenship.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From a Yahoo story on MLB's concerns:

Funny, but federal law already requires "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

In other words, MLB is only worried that standing law might actually have a chance of being enforced now that additional manpower is instructed to check for compliance. The requirement itself is nothing new, basically "we don't mind the law, we're just worried you might actually start enforcing it a little". Ain't that a kick in the head ?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In other words, MLB is only worried that standing law might actually have a chance of being enforced now that additional manpower is instructed to check for compliance. The requirement itself is nothing new, basically "we don't mind the law, we're just worried you might actually start enforcing it a little". Ain't that a kick in the head ?

Given everything in the Arizona bill is already federal law, this is pretty much the crux of the argument by those against it - "We didn't mind when it was an non-enforced federal law, but we do mind now that a state may take action on it."

[lungs]

Originally Posted by ace1914

National ID Card Included In Democratic Immigration Bill - Yahoo! News

Now look what you guys have done. Its a brave, new world.

A new card that can be easily forged.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Given everything in the Arizona bill is already federal law, this is pretty much the crux of the argument by those against it - "We didn't mind when it was an non-enforced federal law, but we do mind now that a state may take action on it."

Really? It's federal law that any AZ citizen can sue any government employee or agency if they don't fully enforce federal immigration laws?

At least you guys are finally admitting that immigrants and citizens are going to have to carry proof of status or face being detained.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At least you guys are finally admitting that immigrants and citizens are going to have to carry proof of status or face being detained.

They risk it, but the officer would still need reasonable suspicion that the guy was an illegal (just like with any other crime).

Edit: If someone in Arizona leaves his house to get the paper and doesn't have his identification on him, the Arizona police can't swoop in and detain him. And an illegal immigrant can't beat law enforcement simply by "forgetting" his identification at home.