audtatious wrote:Simply enforce laws that fine individuals and employers from hiring illegals. They will leave on their own if they have no access to a job nor social services. Let Mexico work out their own problems.

You're absolutely right. This has to be part of the solution, but it can't be all of the solution. There will always be employers and employees who will seek out ways to avoid getting caught, and unless we reform legal immigration, too, there will always be immigrants who'll see an easier path to getting ahead in life by skipping the lines.

AZhitman wrote:...and, again, I can't help but think that geography and the vastly different experiences of living in CT (vs AZ) are partially to blame.

It's certainly not intellect, or the capacity for comprehension, as IBC is remarkably intelligent and well-spoken. It HAS to have something to do with living about as far as geographically possible from the epicenter as one can be (and remain in the contiguous US).

Kinda like people who were born and raised in NorCal can't possibly comprehend the intricacies of Black/White race relations in the deep south. I've spoken several times on this issue, having had the unique opportunity to live in the heart of the south (AL / MS), and in a more "liberal" environment (AZ).

p.s. I lived in Bridgeport, so I know a little about CT, too.

When were you in Bridgeport? I went to school there from 2004-2008.

It's possible I'm not adequately capturing the frustration and the problems faced by the people along our southern border. But I'm making a point of avoiding that topic altogether, and basing my criticism on the practical and legal implication of the law. I'm not defending illegal immigration as much as I am pontificating on the subject of governmental and police power over any given individual.

I have no doubts that illegal immigration creates actual problems for people in every day life, and I have no doubts that there are conflicting views of statistics on the subject. But because I know very little about either thing, I focus more on the principles at play. Maybe I'd be a lousy and ineffective Arizona politician, but as someone who is more focused on the nation as a whole, I'm not too depressed by that thought.

Oh lord... knock 20 years off that.

You'd be a remarkable AZ politician. Even if you weren't a sharp and thoughtful guy, there's really not much competition (Governors Meacham, Symington, Mofford, and Napolitano come to mind... oh, and let's not forget Sheriff Arpaio and Mayor Phil Gordon, both buffoons).

Side note:

THIS is the kind of idiocy we're being subjected to: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/fo ... _ST2_N.htm

Y'know, have you ever had that one friend whose wife or GF continually accuses him of cheating, flirting, fooling around? Time and again, he proves it's not the case, professes his devotion, takes care not to give the impression that he even notices other womern, and goes out of his way to assuage fears of infidelity...

What seems to always happen in those instances? Yep. He finally says, "If I'm gonna be accused and punished for it, I may as well have the fun that goes along with it." Next thing you know, he's nailing the babysitter, the secretary, and the housekeeper.

There's gonna be a backlash down here. Keep calling us "racist", keep questioning our credibility, keep impugning our integrity, and the only ones who will suffer, unfortunately, are our Latino / Hispanic neighbors. We are, quite simply, FED the F*** up.

AZhitman wrote:You'd be a remarkable AZ politician. Even if you weren't a sharp and thoughtful guy, there's really not much competition (Governors Meacham, Symington, Mofford, and Napolitano come to mind... oh, and let's not forget Sheriff Arpaio and Mayor Phil Gordon, both buffoons).

Might be time for a move. I have a surprising amount of family (from both sides, now) that live in Phoenix and in northeast AZ.

And, you might be surprised to know, that Sheriff Arpaio is incredibly popular up here. You might not be surprised, either. My roommate loves the tent cities and the pink stuff. I can't find a compelling reason to disagree with any of it, but I'm not terribly impressed, either.

AZhitman wrote:There's gonna be a backlash down here. Keep calling us "racist", keep questioning our credibility, keep impugning our integrity, and the only ones who will suffer, unfortunately, are our Latino / Hispanic neighbors. We are, quite simply, FED the F*** up.

It's not cool to throw the word "racist" around without care; it carries a lot of hefty social baggage these days. And so I can't get behind a broad brush like that. I wouldn't be surprised if race did play a part in it (especially up here, resistance to brown people showing up becomes a bit suspicious), but that's no excuse. On the other hand, if 75% of the population likes a particular law in its original crappy form, I'm not afraid to call them foolish. The worst they could do was to continue to support crappy laws that eventually get fixed.

IBCoupe wrote:I don't have a problem with the law in its final form. The debate has always been about the original form, and whether that was legal and a good idea.

Sorry, was not aware until recently that you had no issues with the current format as the focus kept going back to the original law and seemed to be the sole reason you were against it. Regardless, AZ used the established Fed law as the basis for their first pass. You should be pissed off at the Fed instead of being accusatory towards AZ.

IBCoupe wrote: They are not stormed over. The last sentence of the portion of the article I quoted states very clearly that they get moved to the back of the existing line. What do you want them to do? Move to the back of the line forever? That's unworkable, because it doesn't address the problem. They'll just stay here/keep coming in illegally if you try to do that.

What does moving them to the back of the line do? They are already here whereas there are people in other countries waiting to get access legally.

IBCoupe wrote:It's not cool to throw the word "racist" around without care; it carries a lot of hefty social baggage these days. And so I can't get behind a broad brush like that. I wouldn't be surprised if race did play a part in it (especially up here, resistance to brown people showing up becomes a bit suspicious), but that's no excuse. On the other hand, if 75% of the population likes a particular law in its original crappy form, I'm not afraid to call them foolish. The worst they could do was to continue to support crappy laws that eventually get fixed.

Racial tensions seem to be worse now than I have seen them the last 20+ years.

IBCoupe wrote: Might be time for a move. I have a surprising amount of family (from both sides, now) that live in Phoenix and in northeast AZ.

Good deal - Hit me up next time you're out this way, dinner is on me (or beer and wings, your call).

IBCoupe wrote:And, you might be surprised to know, that Sheriff Arpaio is incredibly popular up here. You might not be surprised, either. My roommate loves the tent cities and the pink stuff. I can't find a compelling reason to disagree with any of it, but I'm not terribly impressed, either.

Not surprised at all. Most of that stuff has become "urban legend" with a basis in carefully-crafted and disseminated truth.

The old people here love him, because he's billy badass, and won't take crap from anyone.

However (and this is where I put on my Libbie hat), he's a blowhard, a bigmouth, and is about as disrespectful as a man can get. While he's hounding the spotlight, he's also forgetting that the backlash from his actions affects the men and women of his department, who are forced to then DEAL with the anger and resentfulness of the incarcerated.

Tent CIty sounds great, until you realize that there are folks there who haven't been convicted of anything. You and I could just as easily wind up spending a week or two there. Not good.

His policies, which I agree with on the surface, are unnecessarily self-serving and simply expose the state to greater risk (count the # of lawsuits we've spent $millions to defend).

IBCoupe wrote:On the other hand, if 75% of the population likes a particular law in its original crappy form, I'm not afraid to call them foolish. The worst they could do was to continue to support crappy laws that eventually get fixed.

Well, fortunately that's in the past. The foolish are the ones who continue to wring their hands and pitch a fit over something that's probably in effect in their own state right now. My disdain is NOT for those who express a position, I respect a well-defended argument. My disdain is for those who stake a position that's not researched, and who ignore all efforts to educate them.

audtatious wrote:Sorry, was not aware until recently that you had no issues with the current format as the focus kept going back to the original law and seemed to be the sole reason you were against it. Regardless, AZ used the established Fed law as the basis for their first pass. You should be pissed off at the Fed instead of being accusatory towards AZ.

Fair enough, but I'm not as concerned about federal law, for the reason I stated before: they're not on the streets of Phoenix. Local cops are.

audtatious wrote:What does moving them to the back of the line do? They are already here whereas there are people in other countries waiting to get access legally.

It withholds services from them. Yes, it's short of kicking them out and making them wait, but it's also short of giving them blanket amnesty.

audtatious wrote:Racial tensions seem to be worse now than I have seen them the last 20+ years.

I can't really speak to that; I've only been around for 25. That's probably a highly regionalized thing, too, and I'm sure it's played up a bit more in the media than the way it really is.

AZhitman wrote:Good deal - Hit me up next time you're out this way, dinner is on me (or beer and wings, your call).

Might have to do just that the next lengthy break from school I get.

AZhitman wrote:Not surprised at all. Most of that stuff has become "urban legend" with a basis in carefully-crafted and disseminated truth.

The old people here love him, because he's billy badass, and won't take crap from anyone.

However (and this is where I put on my Libbie hat), he's a blowhard, a bigmouth, and is about as disrespectful as a man can get. While he's hounding the spotlight, he's also forgetting that the backlash from his actions affects the men and women of his department, who are forced to then DEAL with the anger and resentfulness of the incarcerated.

Tent CIty sounds great, until you realize that there are folks there who haven't been convicted of anything. You and I could just as easily wind up spending a week or two there. Not good.

His policies, which I agree with on the surface, are unnecessarily self-serving and simply expose the state to greater risk (count the # of lawsuits we've spent $millions to defend).

That's an interesting perspective. I wasn't aware that they sent all the lockups there (or at least, not just the people who've been sentenced).

AZhitman wrote:Well, fortunately that's in the past. The foolish are the ones who continue to wring their hands and pitch a fit over something that's probably in effect in their own state right now. My disdain is NOT for those who express a position, I respect a well-defended argument. My disdain is for those who stake a position that's not researched, and who ignore all efforts to educate them.

You're absolutely right. That's stupid. But I've had plenty of interactions with the people I've mentioned, too. Like I said, it's on all sides.

IBCoupe wrote:Fair enough, but I'm not as concerned about federal law, for the reason I stated before: they're not on the streets of Phoenix. Local cops are.

Feds/ICE are the ones who supposedly enforce immigration issues. They may not be out in numbers but I'm sure there are some in Phoenix.

IBcoupe wrote: It withholds services from them. Yes, it's short of kicking them out and making them wait, but it's also short of giving them blanket amnesty.

It "may" withhold services, assuming the Feds actually follow through, something I find unlikely.

Some interesting reading (maybe fodder for a new thread, I'd like to keep this one focused on bashing boycotters and discussing meaningful immigration policy change):

http://www.arpaio.com/

A little more flattering portrait:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/miracopjail.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

EDIT: I misspoke in an earlier post. The inmates in Tent City have all been convicted. This was, I believe, in response to a lawsuit a few years back. I've been there (for work purposes), and it's terrifying. Quite the deterrent. Wish they'd do school tours or something.

More "Suck it Cali". All aboard the FAIL train

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Thought youd appreciate this AZ

I'm waiting for Obama to file suit against the sanctuary cities that openly defy federal law. He won't, they want the illegals votes.

Those that support open borders should move down south and open their homes to the illegals, else they should pull the pin and swallow a live hand grenade and do us all a favor.

Here is a little more gasoline on the fire. I wasn't too sure whether to put this in the Arizona immigration thread or here.

http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/07/09 ... -illegal-i

That alone would convert the California deficit to a surplus. It gives Arizona a ton of justification for trying to find a way to enforce the federal law that Washington, D.C. won't.

Illegal immigrants can't vote in federal elections, Aud. A few cities have allowed "non-citizen residents" (visa-holders) and "non-citizen immigrants" (green card-holders) to vote in city elections, and I don't know what federal law this would violate - maybe you do. There is no "illegal immigrant vote" to court, least of all for President Obama.

Srellim: I wonder what caused the bump from the $9 bil they claimed six years ago.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/artic ... a577c.html

I think I'll wait for some objective analysis of their numbers from someone who has more time than I do to devote to objective analysis of their numbers, although a quick glance makes me doubt their methods. They're showing numbers that almost suggest that they said, "Okay, the budgets for these organizations are this much, and there's this percentage of the population that's illegal. Easy math!"

I'm given cause to wonder if they accounted for money that was going to be spent anyways. For heck's sake, they're including what looks to be a neighborhood watch expenditure in the law enforcement breakdown.

Edit: So I'm bored while I wait for the car show to begin. In their methodology, it looks like they might be saying that all uncompensated hospital room expenditures are derived from illegal immigrants, but their language is a bit vague. And upon review, their methodology section says nothing as to how they differentiate between costs derived by illegal immigrants (they include American-born children, who have citizenship but they say would probably leave if the parents were deported) and costs derived by everyone else. I'm not sure if their sources differentiate in such a way, but they make no indication. They do say that they start with an estimation as to the illegal immigrant population. Dubious numbers are dubious.

IBCoupe wrote:Illegal immigrants can't vote in federal elections, Aud. A few cities have allowed "non-citizen residents" (visa-holders) and "non-citizen immigrants" (green card-holders) to vote in city elections, and I don't know what federal law this would violate - maybe you do. There is no "illegal immigrant vote" to court, least of all for President Obama.

You mean they are not supposed to be able to vote, that does not mean they are not voting. In most cases it only takes signing a pledge on a voter registration card stating citizenship to get the opportunity to vote. Once registered they are not asked again. These people are already breaking our laws just being here, you think they are going to NOT lie in order to vote? For someone smart you keep fooling yourself.

All that's required of people to vote is that they sign a pledge on a voter registration card stating that they've never been convicted of a felony. Yet, we're not afraid of felons voting in droves simply because all they have to do is lie, right? Maybe because it's not so simple. Maybe because that's a really easy way to get caught.

You have no numbers; only a wild fear that some illegal immigrants might be voting. And I'm the one who's fooling himself?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... zen-Voting

They cite their information. GAO and others have reported on illegals voting. It's been on the news, in the papers, was a big deal during the last election and you still claim no knowledge of it or simply stick your head in the sand and ignore it. Why don't you admit illegals are causing all kinds of crap that the citizens of this country have to pay for or deal with? They are illegal and should have their asses shipped back to their countries...They need to take their f*** brats with them too.

I'm sorry, but that site is full of crap.

Heritage.org wrote:In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.

And their citation? This gem (emphasis mine):

Gov't Accountability Office, Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Election Officials Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists 42 (2005).

The only examples they provide of records of any non-citizen actually voting was where they referenced nonresidents brought to court to testify to their status as nonresidents in a case trying to pin someone for soliciting votes from nonresidents. No kidding they're going to find some. Says nothing of the effects or of how widespread it is (or isn't). Says nothing about federal elections except that "There's no question that it's happening." Until you find me a decent site that isn't obviously biased towards the reactionary, the hyped, or the just plain derped-out, I'm gonna assume you've got nothing to add.

That article did literally nothing but speculate. It started out assuming that there was an actual, noticeable effect, when poor people don't vote in large numbers. Poor people who are here illegally are even less likely to vote. They're not even responding to the census, when we promise them that it won't result in their deportation. They even admit that they don't know how many are actually voting. That article was a complete waste of time.

Don't base your opinions on such retarded sources.

I don't think anyone's afraid of illegals voting. Somehow, the mention of "votes" got twisted.

The point was made that the Left is chasing the "brown vote".

It's VERY clear that the left is (and always has) courted the non-White voter (despite their dismal historical record of actually taking care of non-Whites, but I digress).

The humorous part to me is this: The Hispanic / Latino population that DOES vote is actually more inclined to vote GOP. Latinos supported GWB in droves, at least in the southwest. They're a hard-working bunch, who dislike big government, and many are small business owners - The ones who are concerned about unemployment benefits and welfare programs, statistically, don't even vote.

IBCoupe wrote:Don't base your opinions on such retarded sources.

I'm so comforted by your leaders that it's not happening. The same leaders who won't uphold the law and protect these criminals at every turn.

AZhitman wrote:The humorous part to me is this: The Hispanic / Latino population that DOES vote is actually more inclined to vote GOP. Latinos supported GWB in droves, at least in the southwest. They're a hard-working bunch, who dislike big government, and many are small business owners - The ones who are concerned about unemployment benefits and welfare programs, statistically, don't even vote.

I don't care who they vote for, they should not be allowed to vote. Period.

IBC - I hope you're not implying that the GAO is providing "hyped" or misleading information.

They're one of the few government agencies that "gets it right". Did you read their report? http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-478

(...sorry - as an Auditor, I kinda like reading these things... )

Aud, they're as much your leaders as they are mine, and I'm not sure why you're bringing them up. If you'll look back, the only appeal I made to "my leaders" was for justification for the lawsuit that the Department of Justice filed.

Greg, I was implying that their report, at least from its title, seemed to suggest that they were focused on elections on a State and local level, not that their numbers were off. I was implying that the "think tank" that cited to the report was providing hyped or misleading accounts of the information in the GAO report.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... on-arizona

Ehh...its The Hill...but interesting

EDIT: Heres another source on this same story http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07 ... t-arizona/

Holder's credibility with me diminished significantly when he went on national television spouting off about SB1070 before he had even read it.

He and Napolitano both stated they hadn't had time to read it. Its 10 pages, for crying out loud.

Whether you support the State's action or not, you DO NOT come out yapping about something you haven't taken the time to READ. That's just unprofessional.

Well I love how Holder basically says "Well if this lawsuit fails, we'll find something else to sue it on later" ... what arrogance

Their best bet is to wait until it turns into law and then all they have to do is constantly file lawsuits against AZ each time AZ "finds" an illegal.

In the meantime, your tax money is being wasted - suing AZ, leaving our Border Patrol high and dry due to non-processing of legitimately-arrested illegals, and committing resources to people who have no legitimate claim to them in the first place.

You go, Hussein Hopenchange.