Raising Arizona ... Guns, Illegals ... what next???

[eddie]

As for drunk driving, I don't know why people haven't figured that out yet...the US has the toughest DD laws in the world

No.

1) We have one of the higher legal limits out there (ignoring Islamic countries, which often have none). The fact that we are allowed to "have a few" and then drive home has astonished more than one foreigner I've come across in my short life.

2) You can be executed in El Salvador and Bulgaria. Our sentencing is comparatively light to that of many other nations unless you kill somebody.

 

[eas7888]

I still live by the old JO maxim to keep my ears open and my mouth shut until I really know what I am talking about and have earned the credibility to be taken serious.

This is why I enjoy reading on this thread, but know better than to make any SERIOUS statements about immigration.

All I can say is that illegal immigration is just that, illegal. The methods that are used to enforce such a law are beyond my paygrade, and my concern is only that 1. Human rights are not being violated, and 2. The rights of individual citizens, ensured by the constitution and its amendments, are being upheld.

The interpretation of this law, which to be honest, I have not read in its entirety, is for the courts to decide. I can make all of the un-educated guesses and speculation as to its constitutionality or lack there of, but as was pointed out by wink, I know better.

This is obviously an issue that many people are very passionate about. I can imagine if this discussion were taking place in a bar, someone would have thrown a punch by the end of the first page.

Well. . .</rambling>

 

[wink]

...the US has the toughest DD laws in the world, yet we continually have the highest rate of DD fatalities. Clearly tougher laws aren't doing anything to solve the problem.

In the UK, on first offense, suspension of driving privileges for between 12 and 16 months in MANDATORY! No where in the US does that happen.
German drunk driving laws are brutal. Here is an idea, as recommend above, READ something, do some RESEARCH. I will even get you started.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/dwiothercountries/dwiothercountries.html

 

[Spekkio]

I just don't know where to start. You have no earthly idea what makes up a beneficial economic arrangement. The beauty of our free market, even in labor, is that an equatable arrangement means both parties actually think they are getting a good deal, many times both think they are getting the better deal. if they don't, they move on. I don't get the fed min wage argument. It is the effective market wage and it only affects min wage earners. Moreover, most unskilled workers earn more then min wage. You may be saying that min wage laws are harmful to the labor market. If you are, good on ya. But the very fact it exists is not important to this argument. Fed min wage, free market set wage, union wage, it makes no difference. If an employer knows his worker is illegal he will likely pay him less then a legal worker. You are the one saying business is evil. I am just saying they respond to incentives and dis-incentives, which is what economics really is.

I don't disagree with anything you said, with the exception of me saying business is evil. You brought up the concept of exploitation, which has a negative connotation. My argument is that the arrangement between illegal immigrants and companies who hire them is mutually beneficial, just like any other labor agreement.

Your comment wrt assimilation and illegal immigrants is totally wrong and not supported by facts.

I don't doubt that what you denoted in this paragraph happens; however, I do challenge the assertion that this is the norm rather than the exception. I will research some more hard data, but it would be nice if you provided links to support your claim that the majority of children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants are not Americanizing.

Yet these off spring are legal citizens of the US. Therefore, illegal immigration breeds more people who become dependant on government assistance and they are completely legal to seek out and benefit from that aide.

Well, again, we're back to government labor intrusion and government welfare programs, both of which should not exist on the scale they do today, if at all. Using the same logic applied to illegal immigrants, perhaps we should throw all poor people out of the country, too, since their children likewise grow up poor, can't read/write English at a competent level, and suck money out of the taxpayers' pockets through welfare.

I've heard this argument before and it doesn't really hold water. Those immigrants you speak of 1) did so legally and 2) genuinely wanted to be an American and a part of this country.

That's not necessarily true. We still have Chinatowns and Little Italies in various cities in our country; to say that all immigrants who came here legally genuinely wanted to be an American is disingenuous.

I had to read that a couple time because I couldn't believe you just said that. You don't NOT enforce laws because people will continue participating in unlawful behavior anyway. That's just asinine. We are a society that expects our laws to be followed and if they aren't, there should be consequences. Similarly, we expect and depend on laws to be enforced. Illegal immigration doesn't get a free pass on this because some people's feelings will be hurt.

My point was that when a law is rampantly broken, then the law needs another look. Everyone is guilty in this illegal immigration equation, from the guy who crossed the border to the red-blooded Republican who pays a construction company using illegal immigrants for labor or purchases fruit at the grocery store farmed by illegal immigrants. There isn't a single person in this country who is innocent of supporting illegal immigration in some capacity.

 

[jtmedli]

What's great about this whole debate is that I'm yet to see anyone who can PROVE that the Law will create racism/profiling or can PROVE that it's anything more than two political groups making play for points.

Repubs/AZ = We want help and you dems aren't going to give it us so screw you. We'll do it ourselves at the risk of embarassing you.

DEMS = We haven't read the law, but it's bad because if we say it's good then we might lose votes the so called 'pissing contest' that will be this years election season. To boot, we'll also run the risk of looking like complete idiots by inviting the President of the country that is causing the problem to speak to congress and give him a standing ovation.

Clearly, the Repubs are winning this whole debate by just standing there with their arms crossed and saying, "well, prove us wrong" while the Dems get up in front of congressional meetings and admit they haven't even read the damn thing. So you can read a 2000pg Healthcare Bill in 2 days, but you can't read a 10pg Immigration Bill in 2 months? What a joke. Get off your soapbox and STFU.

 

[A4sForever]

.... haven't read the law, but it's bad because if we say it's good then we might lose votes... (but) .... you can read a 2000pg Healthcare Bill in 2 days, but you can't read a 10pg Immigration Bill in 2 months?...

This is why Holder and Napolitano should resign for the good of the Country.

They make judgments and defamatory statements about something of which they know NOTHING. If they were just two individuals sitting at Starbuck's shooting the breeze ... it wouldn't matter ... BUT: they're not. They are, instead, ideologues, disingenuous, a threat to the country, and when taken together -- they represent a collective joke foisted upon the USA of the worst kind, as they are in power.

While our Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security might not have read the bill -- YOU may by clicking the link, if you so choose.

ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1070 (as amended)

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Well, again, we're back to government labor intrusion and government welfare programs, both of which should not exist on the scale they do today, if at all.

I can agree with that. The question is, what are you doing about it?

That's not necessarily true. We still have Chinatowns and Little Italies in various cities in our country; to say that all immigrants who came here legally genuinely wanted to be an American is disingenuous.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall going into any government building and seeing things written in Mandarin, Korean, or Italian or even hearing employees there speaking those languages. I couldn't really care less about Chinatowns, Little Italies, Little Mexico's, etc. That's not what I'm talking about when I refer to illegal immigrants not wanting to integrate and I think you know that.

My point was that when a law is rampantly broken, then the law needs another look.

Or just enforced. Enforcement of laws does deter others from breaking them. Ever driven through Waldo, FL?

Everyone is guilty in this illegal immigration equation, from the guy who crossed the border to the red-blooded Republican who pays a construction company using illegal immigrants for labor or purchases fruit at the grocery store farmed by illegal immigrants.

Companies hiring illegal immigrants is definitely a problem and I would like to see some focus at the state level for rectifying this.

There isn't a single person in this country who is innocent of supporting illegal immigration in some capacity.

Sure you aren't a lefty? This sounds like lefty logic to me. The government won't do it's job, one of the few things the Constitution actually gives it the authority to legislate, and it's the people's fault?

 

[Spekkio]

I can agree with that. The question is, what are you doing about it?

I don't vote for people who stand for expansion of these government "programs." But I must admit, that is hard to do today since both sides of our two party system want bigger government, it's just a question of where. As a non-business owner and a military service member, that's all I realistically can do without breaking the law.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall going into any government building and seeing things written in Mandarin, Korean, or Italian or even hearing employees there speaking those languages. I couldn't really care less about Chinatowns, Little Italies, Little Mexico's, etc. That's not what I'm talking about when I refer to illegal immigrants not wanting to integrate and I think you know that.

Then what were you referring to? I agree that our government conducts official business in English; however, I have encountered many children of legal immigrants who are more proud to be from that nation than American.

Or just enforced. Enforcement of laws does deter others from breaking them. Ever driven through Waldo, FL?

The laws I referenced in particular are enforced. Our government spends billions of dollars enforcing immigration and drug laws. It's hard to get more enforcement without turning the country into a police state, which is what the AZ law puts us on the path to do.

Sure you aren't a lefty? This sounds like lefty logic to me. The government won't do it's job, one of the few things the Constitution actually gives it the authority to legislate, and it's the people's fault?

Lefty's tend to think the answer to everything is more government regulation. I don't see how holding individuals more accountable for their actions is lefty logic; in fact, it's quite the opposite.

 

[Alpha_Echo_606]

Here is just what this thread needs.

 

[Spekkio]

Yes, because we certainly should model our government after Sudan, Iran, China, and Mexico.

 

[scoolbubba]

Yes, because we certainly should model our government after Sudan, Iran, China, and Mexico.

Choke yourself.

 

[hokieav8r]

Choke yourself.

+1

and Go Hokies.

 

[Recovering LSO]

There's another assumption: we don't have an equitable system, nor do we have one that allows people to immigrate in anywhere near a timely fashion. Immigration by legal means is a broken process unless you marry an American.

And even then its broken. I have a very close friend who married a woman who has dual citizenship in both Poland and Canada. She is in the last few months of preparing to defend her thesis for a PhD in molecular biology. She's on her way to curing cancer or inventing a better ED pill. He is an O-4 and has made multiple deployments. They were married two years ago and immediately hired an attorney to facilitate the process. Things were tracking along fine until the paperwork went to the govt. They are now, two years later, no closer to getting her paperwork squared away. And this is after numerous letters and phone calls to reps and senators. CAG has even gotten involved.

As a point of comparison. The guy who tried to blow up times square applied for legal resident status several months after my friends wife.

 

[wink]

Well the lawsuits are rolling in. I think we are up to five offically filed. Now might be a good time to give the defendants a chance to tee up their defense. The legal scholar that consulted on the new AZ law recently wrote an article defending the law. As it was printed in National Review I suppose some of you detractors would expect the article to be dripping with nativism and ideology. Well it isn't. The article defends all the actual and projected legal challenges to come by citing legal cases, current law and the legislative history. Give it a good read so you can balance the coming press reports about the lawsuits with more knowledge then the reports will have.
http://www.kriskobach.org/Assets/Files/Kobach-National Review.pdf