AZ immigration law: I guess I'm a conspiracy theory nutjob.

[2zuks]

Good, so now you folks can go back to making decisions based on throwing the rune stones and tuning in Fox. "No need for any facts here folks, they are all flawed anywhere, objectivity is overrated, just join the conga dance! Where will this lead us folks?

There are objective stats, they are the kind we need to make informed decisions. I've provided the best ones I can find, not ones that I cherry picked.

Yes, what part of we have not enforced this law for 40 years don't you get?

You are acting as if we are trying to decide if we are going to make a law concerning immigration. Looking at statistics, although only some of the statistics to make a informed decision on what our law should be. We have the law. Either we enforce it or we don't, period. But if we don't, what is fair about selectively enforcing the law? Why should Mexicans be allowed to flood the border by violating the law, but Japanese or people of any other origin can't? You guys like to preach fairness. How is that fair in any way? How is if fair to the Mexicans that are waiting to do things right? It isn't.

What is a objective stat? I pulled up the Uniform Crime Report from Arizona last night. If you have ever looked at a UCR it is pretty extensive. Which stats do you choose to represent? Crime fluctuates from year to year. Which years do you represent? I could take statistics from the UCR for two given years and make a arguement in two different directions. Bit's of statistics can mislead without seeing the entire picture. That is my point.

The law has been enforced for 40 years, just not well enough for a certain group of people. Our immigration laws have applied to everyone who obeyed them. I guess by the liberal point of view, we should only enforce our laws with certain groups of people. Hmmmm, that sounds a bit racist.

I don't have to watch FOX News. I see the results of illegal immigration continuously. As I mentioned earlier, my wife's 12 year old cousin had a gun stuck to her head by a illegal gang member two weeks ago or so. If that was your kid and the gang member would have shot her, would that be a statistic significant enough to get your attention, or would you still be on here arguing murder statistics, rape statistics, and all as if you were counting apples? All of the numbers become much more significant when someone you love happens to be a statistic.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Of course Gunner! The current admin was voted in by bugeye and his lefty-buds. Therefore the state(s) must be at fault because it can't be the feds.

Of course when Janet Napolitano was Arizona's Governor and Bush was in the white house the story coming out of bugeye's mouth would've sounded a lot different.
As in a 180 degree shift from the "argument of the moment."

Hmmm, that's odd, the same thing has changed with Janet Napolitano's appointment to Homeland Security,...
Imagine that!

 

[Trlsmn]

Of course Gunner! The current admin was voted in by bugeye and his lefty-buds. Therefore the state(s) must be at fault because it can't be the feds.

Of course when Janet Napolitano was Arizona's Governor and Bush was in the white house the story coming out of bugeye's mouth would've sounded a lot different.
As in a 180 degree shift from the "argument of the moment."

Hmmm, that's odd, the same thing has changed with Janet Napolitano's appointment to Homeland Security,...
Imagine that!

Of course! You know Bugeye was likely ranting about George Bush bringing in all this cheap immigrant labor to work for big business because they cater to the super rich corporations and they were doing it to bust the unions!

Is it just me or does anyone else get that slimy feeling when Bugeye and CEF1959 talk about "Undocumented Workers" like they are happy to have them as their servants and not like they are humans?

 

[Just Jim]

Is it just me or does anyone else get that slimy feeling when Bugeye and CEF1959 talk about "Undocumented Workers" like they are happy to have them as their servants and not like they are humans?

I suspect that both of them work for the government and want more people to move here to support their retirements with tax dollars.

jj

 

[2zuks]

Of course! You know Bugeye was likely ranting about George Bush bringing in all this cheap immigrant labor to work for big business because they cater to the super rich corporations and they were doing it to bust the unions!

Is it just me or does anyone else get that slimy feeling when Bugeye and CEF1959 talk about "Undocumented Workers" like they are happy to have them as their servants and not like they are humans?

You guys are right, it would be a huge change in arguement from the lefties if someone else was in power.

I just don't understand liberals at all. They want constitutional rights for everyone!

Well, except they don't really want the 1st ammendment to apply to conservatives, or anyone who doesn't share their thoughts as evidenced by the white house trying to cut FOX NEWS out among other things. Then there is that pesky 2nd ammendment thing that most liberals see as a nuisance and try to outlaw on a regular basis. Hmmm. Well, they like constitutional rights for illegal immigrants and non citizen terrorists and enemy combatants. WTF?

 

[2506]

I suspect that both of them work for the government and want more people to move here to support their retirements with tax dollars.

jj

That would be nice, but I think illegals are a net negative on the tax pool. I doubt anyone coming over the border is logging onto Turbotax or sitting around the hacienda trying to pencil-out their Arizona State Income Tax...

 

[Father of four]

HEHE! Love it!

 

[2zuks]

Bugeye, it is hard to find concrete statistics for states expendature. I have found a lot of info, but most you would shoot down because of source. Here are some statistics given by the notoriously conservative source, the LA Times.


"That said, let's be honest: Illegal immigration does cost California taxpayers a substantial wad, undeniably into the billions."

"There are roughly 19,000 illegal immigrants in state prisons, representing 11% of all inmates. That's costing $970 million during the current fiscal year. The feds kick in a measly $111 million, leaving the state with an $859 million tab."

"If you figure that the children of illegal immigrants attending K-12 schools approximates the proportion of illegal immigrants in the population, the bill currently comes to roughly $4 billion. Most is state money; some local property taxes."

"Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to welfare, called CalWORKs. But their citizen children are. Roughly 190,000 kids are receiving welfare checks that pass through their parents. The cost: about $500 million, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office."

"The state is spending $775 million on Medi-Cal healthcare for illegal immigrants, according to the legislative analyst. Of that, $642 million goes into direct benefits"

"So-called emergency services are the biggest state cost: $536 million. Prenatal care is $59 million. Not counted in the overall total is the cost of baby delivery -- $108 million -- because the newborns aren't illegal immigrants."

"The state also pays $47 million for programs that Washington does not require: Non-emergency care (breast and cervical cancer treatment), $25 million; long-term nursing home care, $19 million; abortions, $3 million."

"There also are other taxpayer costs -- especially through local governments -- but those are the biggies for the state. Add them all up and the state spends well over $5 billion a year on illegal immigrants and their families."

"Of course, illegal immigrants do pay state taxes. But no way do they pay enough to replenish what they're drawing in services. Their main revenue contribution would be the sales tax, but they can't afford to be big consumers, and food and prescription drugs are exempt."

So they are giving a figure that is around $5 billion a year in cost to the state of California. That doesn't include the personal cost to the victims of crimes commited. In my opinon $5 billion doesn't qualify as a modest amount.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I care about illegal immigration as much as anyone else here. I grew up in SoCal so I'm well aware of the problems. I still would never vote to give up a freedom like that. Giving local cops this power is asking for big problems, and just because you and I don't look "illegal" sure as **** wont' stop the local PD from abusing the power to detain you if they have no other legal recourse. What proof do you have right now that you're a citizen? Do you carry your passport with you? Your birth cert. (wait, that's not a legal doc according to birthers ).

It's interesting that the same people who don't trust the gov't with our gun rights, trust the government with out right to search and seizure. Hopefully I'm wrong about that.

Again, you do not understand this new law. It only allows cops to ask about citizenship if they come into contact with a person in the normal performance of their duties, such as a traffic stop or criminal investigation/arrest. It is zero infringement of our liberties and it will save US citizens lives

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Arizona Republic: Violence in border towns has not increased
Republic: Crime rates in Arizona border towns "have remained essentially flat for the past decade." In a May 2 article, The Arizona Republic reported, "FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the international line. Statewide, rates of violent crime also are down."

You are making claims without links so I will disregard these comments except to say that the invasion has been well underway for over a decade, so naturally it's probably stabilizes at SUPER BAD status.

What about the crime in the other US States? Illegals commit huge numbers of crimes, kill over 9,000 US citizens every year and you do not care

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html

<broken link removed>

Tells me all I need to know..

 

[Blitzkrieg]

You are acting as if we are trying to decide if we are going to make a law concerning immigration. Looking at statistics, although only some of the statistics to make a informed decision on what our law should be. We have the law. Either we enforce it or we don't, period. But if we don't, what is fair about selectively enforcing the law? Why should Mexicans be allowed to flood the border by violating the law, but Japanese or people of any other origin can't? You guys like to preach fairness. How is that fair in any way? How is if fair to the Mexicans that are waiting to do things right? It isn't.

What is a objective stat? I pulled up the Uniform Crime Report from Arizona last night. If you have ever looked at a UCR it is pretty extensive. Which stats do you choose to represent? Crime fluctuates from year to year. Which years do you represent? I could take statistics from the UCR for two given years and make a arguement in two different directions. Bit's of statistics can mislead without seeing the entire picture. That is my point.

The law has been enforced for 40 years, just not well enough for a certain group of people. Our immigration laws have applied to everyone who obeyed them. I guess by the liberal point of view, we should only enforce our laws with certain groups of people. Hmmmm, that sounds a bit racist.

I don't have to watch FOX News. I see the results of illegal immigration continuously. As I mentioned earlier, my wife's 12 year old cousin had a gun stuck to her head by a illegal gang member two weeks ago or so. If that was your kid and the gang member would have shot her, would that be a statistic significant enough to get your attention, or would you still be on here arguing murder statistics, rape statistics, and all as if you were counting apples? All of the numbers become much more significant when someone you love happens to be a statistic.

I would be willing to bet that Bugeye would forgive the illegal scumbag murderer and "pray" for him..

 

[bugeye]

Bugeye, I have come to the conclusion that not only are you blind to truth, you don't want to know any different. There is no hope.

"There is none so blind as he who will not see."

It's OK. Our SW states don't have burdensome expenses from illegals putting kids in school, providing Spanish speaking teachers, people with no insurance having accidents and fleeing, people taking jobs but not paying taxes. people managing to get social services... There is no crime problem and most of our drugs don't come over that border. Nope, no problem at all so let's just forget it.

We need to quantify problems before looking at solutions, otherwise we can end up doing dumb things. This is not a radical idea, it is a sensible idea, used to fix almost anything from a toaster (throw it it it's only $18) to an oil leak 5000 feet below the surface of an ocean.

The children you speak of are mostly citizens, and we can't deport citizens, right? So their education is not even an issue. We can let their parents stay here and raise these citizens for a low cost or we can deport their parents and then the state gets to raise these kids at a very high cost. The other items you list are legit and they do cost, but how much? If this is a non racial economic decision then lets evaluate decisions based on their economic merits.

Also, it is unfair to say I don't want to deal with this problem, as I've said I'm in favor of immunity and granting citizenship to non criminal illegals who have shown themselves to be functional. I've also said that once that is done we need very strict laws that must be enforced to stop anymore inflow of new illegals. Not enforcing laws was done for the benefit of a powerful segment of our system, so we are responsible for this problem, dealing with it by suddenly strictly enforcing these laws is just a moral dodge, another way of being irresponsible. This would not be the action of a country worthy of respect, it would be the action of a country of weasels. We should man up, take responsibility, and fix the problems we have made with a mind toward minimizing the damage.

This message brought to you by Pedro's Taco Truck that has done more to curb illegal immigration by promoting intestinal tract disorders, than has the INS.

 

[Father of four]

2zuks quote:
"So-called emergency services are the biggest state cost: $536 million. Prenatal care is $59 million. Not counted in the overall total is the cost of baby delivery -- $108 million -- because the newborns aren't illegal immigrants."

This is a real problems to me. I do not think they should be considered United States Citizens. There parents are here illegally!
Here is another post of mine...

I do not agree that if someone came here ILLEGALLY and became pregnant and had a child here it would be a citizen. That is just not right. If someone has committed a crime it should trump any benefits that may come after! I think ALL of the people who came here illegally should be made to go back to Mexico or where ever they came from with their ILLEGAL children.

Them breaking our laws in the first place should mean EVERYTHING they have done after that is invalid! EVERYTHING that would have or could have benefited them! THEY KNEW that they were coming across our border and into our states ILLEGALLY in the first place. And that is exactly why their children should not be considered America children!!!!!!!!

If I broke the law...lets say I rob someone. And took that money and bought something. That something I bought should be sold and the money should go back to the rightful owner. Or that someone could have the right to keep what I had bought.

Or lets say I went onto a persons property illegally and set up camp. Then I built a house on that property. When the owner found out I was there, he/she has the right to make me leave and take my stuff with me. And if I couldn't take the house I built, tough! It would be the property owners. It was built there illegally in the first place! AND if my child was born there on that property ILLEGALLY it has not right to it, period!

And lastly. If I was the one who came across the border Illegally I should get what should be coming to them!

 

[Stomper]

I was just thinking about how many million would die in a mass deportation, millions dropped off to starve to death in northern mexico, and we would be responsible for that as we let this situation go on way too long for our own benefit.

Sheesh, that's like sayin' it would be my fault for shooting a housebreaker to death (inside my own home... of course) if I happened to live in Chicago, IL w/o a "FOID" or something...


No sir, the ILLEGALS would be responsible for their own situation, THEY MADE THE CHOICE to come here illegally ("for way too long"), they can suffer the potential consequences... it's called DETERENCE!

Also, it is unfair to say I don't want to deal with this problem, as I've said I'm in favor of immunity and granting citizenship to non criminal illegals who have shown themselves to be functional.

Well since they are ALL criminals already for violating an IMPORTANT law from the get-go, that would preclude ALL of them from immunity... doncha-think? Economics be damned, doing the RIGHT THING is often difficult (because its EASIER to be evil), and shouldn't be equated with "moral economic relativism".

 

[Father of four]

Here is some information on what I think...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthr...ited_States_of_America#Children_of_immigrants

Children of immigrants

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

* is born in the United States
* of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
* whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
* whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Although any language in Wong Kim Ark that suggests the Court's opinion and rationale could be expanded to include the children of illegal immigrants would be mere dicta as Wong's parents were in the country legally.[28] Children born to foreign diplomats or, hypothetically, to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power, are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore are not citizens at birth.[29] The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[30]

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[31] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[28] When accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, a newborn's status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father.

Generally unaffected? It most diffidently should be!!!!

 

[Father of four]

Another interesting read about the Anchor baby way.

http://adnanshahab.com/?tag=anchor-baby

 

[bugeye]

I would be willing to bet that Bugeye would forgive the illegal scumbag murderer and "pray" for him..

If I'm the source of the religious point of view in here we all might as well call priceline and try to get a deal on the west wing of the Hades Hilton!

 

[Stomper]

Question... concerning "anchor babies"; what if ONE of the parents is here legally and/or is a US Citizen? Admittedly, that is a sticky wicket.

 

[Stomper]

If I'm the source of the religious point of view in here we all might as well call priceline and try to get a deal on the west wing of the Hades Hilton!

You got some cheap pitchfoks for sale, Buggy?

 

[Father of four]

Last one. http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/