Stand with Arizona

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, May 16, 2010 21:28
VIEWED: 15979
PAGE 14 of 18

Preface:

ETA Anthony - I see that you have started a new thread about my last item...

=============
Anthony, you are absolutely right, I'm still learning, and there's a lot to learn. The more I look the more I find to dislike about all of it from all sides.

To address your points:
I don't ask for responsibility from criminals - pretty absurd as you suggest. I ask citizens of any country who want to live here to respect our immigration laws. That's clearly too much to ask.

You asked:

"Do you think they'd bother with a cayote if they had another efficient means of getting here, trouble-free?"

So is it about the cheapest way or the quickest way to get here? And not the legal way? So if the legal way costs more and takes longer, then fuck it? That's what it sounds like and that's what it looks like. I think if you understand that you might understand a lot of the frustration that illegal immigration inspires.

I completely agree with your suggestion about serious penalties for employers of illegals. That's essential, and clearly whatever they are now they aren't stiff enough.

We definitely disagree about the point of this law. You see it as pure evil, designed to harass Latino Citizens, even encourage it. I think it was designed more as a deterrent to illegal immigration:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126741982

"[the] hope for the new law is not that it results in a bunch of arrests, but that it makes Arizona such an inhospitable place for illegal immigrants that they go somewhere else."

Nothing else has worked and you can't build a wall, so you get this philosophically evil law.

Like I said, the more I find the worse it gets:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g7t3Rd4wB0IpcRI0xco
iaN4VEA2w

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"We definitely disagree about the point of this law. You see it as pure evil, designed to harass Latino Citizens, even encourage it. I think it was designed more as a deterrent to illegal immigration"

Hello,

Neither of us is in disagreement about the 'point' of the law. I don't think anyone sat down and said, "Hey, let's make a law so that we can harrass people."

What we disagree on is the law's potential for misuse. To my mind, every law should be scrutinized to see how it can be misused, mishandled, and misapplied. Every new law represents a new threat on the freedoms of the citizenry. That threat must be carefully weighed against the benefits provided.

I see ways to get all the same benefits without including that 'proof of citizenship' potentially be attached to any 'lawful contact.'

Laws in Arizona recently became quite harsh on the employers of illegal immigrants. That's just fine with me. Eliminate incentive WITHOUT impacting the freedoms of the citizenry.

And yes, by the way, all black markets (including black market immigration) surface when doing something legally is either difficult, prohibitively expensive, or impossible. There are two ways to eliminate the incentive for this behavior. A) Give the illegals no reason to want to be here, by eliminating their chances for employment. B) Make legal immigration a more open and simple process, so that we can absorb however many applicants wish to come here to work and live otherwise honest lives.

Why not do both? Which part of 'eliminating incentive' requires citizens to whip out a Birth Certificate on command?

It's the wrong angle to take. It's a bad law. A kneejerk reaction instead of a carefully contemplated one. It hasn't been weighed carefully to minimize the impact on citizens. It's a shotgun, when the country needed a rifle.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

So is it about the cheapest way or the quickest way to get here? And not the legal way? So if the legal way costs more and takes longer, then fuck it? That's what it sounds like and that's what it looks like.

---

Maybe we should clap them on the back and wish them a hearty congratulations for figuring out The American Way™ so quickly. After all, that is EXACTLY what corporations here do, day in and day out. Figure out the cheapest, quickest way to make a profit, and fuck the legalities. If you get caught, ask for forgiveness, but NEVER ask for permission beforehand.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Dream, check the timestamp of the posts - I was sitting next to Gus and bet him the bill for lunch that in under 10 minutes flat, writing the post included, I could wind him up into flaming me.

-F

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"We definitely disagree about the point of this law. You see it as pure evil, designed to harass Latino Citizens, even encourage it. I think it was designed more as a deterrent to illegal immigration"

Hello,

Neither of us is in disagreement about the 'point' of the law. I don't think anyone sat down and said, "Hey, let's make a law so that we can harrass people."

What we disagree on is the law's potential for misuse. To my mind, every law should be scrutinized to see how it can be misused, mishandled, and misapplied. Every new law represents a new threat on the freedoms of the citizenry. That threat must be carefully weighed against the benefits provided.

I see ways to get all the same benefits without including that 'proof of citizenship' potentially be attached to any 'lawful contact.'

Laws in Arizona recently became quite harsh on the employers of illegal immigrants. That's just fine with me. Eliminate incentive WITHOUT impacting the freedoms of the citizenry.

And yes, by the way, all black markets (including black market immigration) surface when doing something legally is either difficult, prohibitively expensive, or impossible. There are two ways to eliminate the incentive for this behavior. A) Give the illegals no reason to want to be here, by eliminating their chances for employment. B) Make legal immigration a more open and simple process, so that we can absorb however many applicants wish to come here to work and live otherwise honest lives.

Why not do both? Which part of 'eliminating incentive' requires citizens to whip out a Birth Certificate on command?

It's the wrong angle to take. It's a bad law. A kneejerk reaction instead of a carefully contemplated one. It hasn't been weighed carefully to minimize the impact on citizens. It's a shotgun, when the country needed a rifle.

---

Anthony - I agree with all of your suggestions with the exception of:

"Make legal immigration a more open and simple process, so that we can absorb however many applicants wish to come here to work and live otherwise honest lives."

The process is slow for a reason - we'd be overwhelmed if it wasn't.

I totally agree with your take on anyone who hires illegals - major penalties - they're doing it to shave costs so fine them, hit them where it hurts the most. We have almost 10% unemployment - illegals are getting the jobs that other should have.

Along those lines:

"The experience of the past two years has shown that migration responds swiftly to changing incentives. The Center for Immigration Studies has tracked monthly census data for young Hispanic males with low levels of education—a good proxy for the illegal immigrant population. Between the summer of 2007 and the first quarter of 2009, that population actually declined. Extrapolating from survey figures, CIS estimates that the illegal population in the U.S. dropped by 1.7 million during the recession. The number of illegals entering the country fell by about one-third while the number returning home doubled ."

It's from an article that is an interesting read on the subject.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/202381/in-defense-of-arizona

POSTED ON APRIL 28, 2010, AT 4:43 PM

"Will anyone speak up for Arizona and its new immigration law?

The state abused by Jon Stewart as the “meth lab” of democracy has been forced to deal alone with a problem created and then ignored by the national government. Arizona’s answer is not perfect, but it is not unreasonable either—and should jerk the national conscience to attention.

Imagine yourself a landowner in southern Arizona. The border between San Diego and Tijuana is now effectively fenced, so the flow of illegal immigration has been diverted to your front yard. Every morning you wake up to a hillock of garbage: plastic bottles, food remains, human urine and feces. If you try to police your land, you put your life at risk: Last month, Arizona rancher Rob Krentz was murdered on his own property, likely by a

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'm not a "knee jerk" lefty. Some of my friends would like to see free abortion clinics on every corner, and the borders opened, so that every one can have peace, freedom, and prosperity. Hah.

According to Kris Kobach, this law is bulletproof, and the authors made every effort to work within the framework of the Constitution. If it is enforced in a rational manner (possible!), it might achieve the purpose of deterring additional illegal immigration.

The people who have blown this out of proportion have a lot in common with those who were screaming, "health care reform will turn America in to a Nazi state, and end life as we know it!"

I'm in SoCal, and I distinctly remember illegal drywallers marching in the streets of L.A. in the 1990s demanding better wages. During the May 1 rally here in L.A., thousands of Hispanics marched in the streets, carrying signs that said "Legalizacion Ahora!" and the like.

For every legal contractor (I have to carry Liability ins, a bond and keep my license current)there are 10 "under the table" contractors in Los Angeles. Oh, I don't have the statistics for that...I just know that the CSLB is working full time to bust these guys, and the numbers are listed in my quarterly CSLB newsletter.

I'm an old hippie, my daughter is a young hippie, my DH is a jazz musician, and also an old hippie. My job used to support us when he was a starving musician, now I'm a starving carpenter, DH is supporting me (and I have to do all the house and yard work!)

I've been a carpenter for 25 years. I've worked with illegals who were kind people, and hard workers; and some who were scum (once on a job, the painters saw that I didn't have lunch and invited me to share theirs, which was delicious. On another job, the painters working in the next room were having a conversation about that "white bitch" who does she think she was taking "their" job and talking about what they would do to me, until I walked in and asked them in Spanish if they knew where the boss was) It'd be good if people could reserve judgment until they look at both sides

Illegal immigration is a quality of life, common sense issue. The quality of open-mindedness is cool, until it breaks free of the atmosphere of reality. Or something.



"although you're two feet taller than me, once I find a way out of here I will kick your ass" me

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'm an aging hippie too, and still hold most of my liberal values. I think one of the best ways to solve the problems you've enumerated is to go after employers hiring illegal workers...which of course the majority of Republicans are against because it would raise prices and stand in the way of "capitalism", sadly.

As to illegal contractors, my experience has been that more often than not, legal ones are just as bad (small snark there not aimed at you). But I thought contractors had to be licensed--I found: "Any contractor doing a job worth $500 or more must be licensed in California" ( http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=number+of+illegal
+contractors&target=article), so I think my impression was right.

Aside from people too stupid to check the licensing of their contractor (who, unquestionably, represent quite a number!), how can they compete? And how could illegal drywallers march for better wages if they're illegal? Did you know they were all illegal? It seems strange to me.

No, I disagree that we've blown it out of proportion. If even ONE American citizen is wrongly detained (and hundreds have been, for months, I posted the facts on that), that's unacceptable. The "Nazi state" thing IS absurd, but this is about a real issue regarding things that have happened and are happening today.

Sure, some go overboard (tho' I don't consider it "overboard", I also don't agree on open borders), some always do. But at the very least, those who go overboard are misguided by CARING impulses...same cannot be said of the motives of those convincing the Tea Partiers that healthcare will make a Nazi state.

The other point against the law is also valid: It IS racism, that's real, not a fantasy; when you target specifically one race of people, it's racism, pure and simple. Nobody is being targeted other than those who might "look illegal", since the only people who could look illegal are Hispanics.

There's a huge difference. However wrong or overboard you may view those of us who disagree with the new law, we aren't motivated by our own self-interest, fear or rhetoric by talking heads appealing to our fears. It IS a problem, but the bullshit about horrific crime numbers has been shown false; experts aren't sure whether illegals cost more in social services than they pay in taxes (since they don't get benefits from the SSI taxes most of them have to pay); ripping civil rights away from anyone, legal or illegal, is wrong; and most importantly, the idea that legal American citizens will be affected by this ARE all valid arguments, not just talking points.

As to people looking at both sides before judging, if you're talking about the workers you described, you could be talking about ANY employees anywhere; I've worked all my life and seen both sides of that, and I've never knowingly worked with illegals, having worked in the corporate world. If you mean those of us against the new law should see both sides, I think we DO, we recognize there's a problem, we just want to approach it from a direction that is less racist, more humane and that doesn't endanger innocent people.

However misguided arguments on our side may be, they're motivated by humane beliefs, that may be the biggest difference. You spoke of people here as being "sympathetic"...I think we're sympathetic to both sides, but find this approach definitely NOT sympathetic to anyone (especially innocent, Hispanic-looking people!).

I hope the law falls and it would be nice if this having happened forces the federal government to come up with better solutions to the immigrant problem.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME