Turnover of AZ Law...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Gotta agree with scottw. With the amount of money spent for social services, increased law enforcement, insurance costs due to crime and free hospital care, it'd be tough to convince me that we wouldn't see a net-benefit.

Here's an old study:

And that's just the cost to the federal government. Also, the illegal problem has increased significantly since 2002.

Here are some numbers for the County of Los Angeles:

How about:

I'd gladly give up 1% of my wealth to be rid of the problems that come with illegal immigration.

Then there's the cost to states to give these people who have no respect for our laws an education:

But, I'm just a crazy moonbat liberal...

+1 (not the moonbat liberal part)

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the debate is poisoned by the partisan nature of politics, especially in the current times.

The GOP power base has declared that there's really no room for tolerance on immigration issues. McCain, Bush 43 etc... were all hammered by their own party for taking a pragmatic position.

This has let the nut jobs mingle with the Republicans. I do think many pushing the AZ law were motivated by racism and a sense of stopping a Hispanic invasion.

That's not to say that there are reasonable AZ folks who support the law. Certainly there's a sense of outrage and that the Federal government isn't doing enough to stop the problem, and this is a National issue.

Obama's general policy position doesn't seem to be all that far from Bush. And recent reports seem to indicate he's been even more aggressive in cracking down on illegals.

Under Obama, More Illegal Immigrants Sent Home : NPR

I'd think people should be giving Obama credit for his success during these trying times.

-spence

Spencism Alert, some commonality, some partisanism, some sprinkling of whackjobs associating with other party, followed by some redirection. Love ya kid, but sometimes you really make me chuckle

Support for AZ law:

May 2010 WSJ/MNC: First Read - Poll: Nearly two-thirds back AZ law

From NBC's Mark Murray

Nearly two-thirds back AZ law.

Here's another set of numbers from the new NBC/WSJ poll we're teasing:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans back Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law, which makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. The law also requires local and state law enforcement officials to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they're in the country illegally.

Sixty-four percent favor this law, while 34 percent oppose it. But those numbers are essentially reversed among Latinos -- with 70 percent of them opposing the law, and only 27 percent supporting it.

Even though almost two-thirds of the public supports Arizona's law, nearly an identical number (66 percent) believe it will lead to the discrimination of Latino immigrants who reside in the U.S. legally.

Gallup April 29: More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona's new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it.

I'd put more numbers in but they do images of the poll -v- text )

CNN - couple days ago:

CNN poll: Most back Arizona law but cite concerns about effects

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* Fifty-five percent of those polled say they favor Arizona's immigration law
* Fifty percent say it will not reduce illegal immigration
* Arizona law is set to go into effect Thursday
* Critics say law will lead to racial profiling; supporters say its aim is to enforce federal law

Washington (CNN) -- Most Americans support Arizona's new law on illegal immigration, but according to a national poll, a majority think the controversial measure will increase discrimination against Hispanics while not necessarily making a dent in the problem.

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey also indicates that Hispanic and whites don't see eye to eye over the law.

Numbers roughly in line with that biased Rasmussen:

Opposed to the DOJ challenging the AZ law:

56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Law; 61% Favor Similar Law In Their State
Thursday, July 08, 2010

Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.

These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Spencism Alert, some commonality, some partisanism, some sprinkling of whackjobs associating with other party, followed by some redirection. Love ya kid, but sometimes you really make me chuckle

I don't buy the polls, or at least don't think the really reinforce the point.

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.

Why would people support a bill they think will lead to more discrimination?

Because the polls are probably more reflective of the fact that people just want the government to do more, rather than specific endorsement for the more controversial elements of the AZ legislation.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't buy the polls, or at least don't think the really reinforce the point.

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.

Why would people support a bill they think will lead to more discrimination?

Because the polls are probably more reflective of the fact that people just want the government to do more, rather than specific endorsement for the more controversial elements of the AZ legislation.

-spence

this is Patrick Kennedy logic

[justplugit]

LOL, it's amazing how we all agree if a poll is going our way, but if
it doesn't we say it's flawed.
Ya have to look at a group of polls and look at the trend to see
if they are pointing in one direction or the other.

[Raven]

Poland is a long way to go for an opinion

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.

Why would people support a bill they think will lead to more discrimination?
-spence

That the bill might lead to discrimination, or that people think it will, is not the test. As judge Bolton said, the Federal Government must demonstrate that the AZ law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument. (Of course, she contradicted her own directions and ruled on hypotheticals.) The fact is, almost any bill, or law can, and has led to accusations of discrimination. If the test for a law to exist is that it cannot potentially lead to "discrimination", a whole lot of ordinances have to be revoked.

The potential for a law to lead to discrimination does not necessarily lay in the law, but in its application by individual enforcers. The fault is usually not in the law, but in racially biased individuals. Rather than blaming and disavowing valuable law, when it is applied in a discriminatory fashion, the individual who misuses the law should be prosecuted--don't blame the law.

So it is not necessarily a contradiction if supporters of the AZ law think it might lead to discrimination but still support it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That the bill might lead to discrimination, or that people think it will, is not the test. As judge Bolton said, the Federal Government must demonstrate that the AZ law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument. (Of course, she contradicted her own directions and ruled on hypotheticals.) The fact is, almost any bill, or law can, and has led to accusations of discrimination. If the test for a law to exist is that it cannot potentially lead to "discrimination", a whole lot of ordinances have to be revoked.

The potential for a law to lead to discrimination does not necessarily lay in the law, but in its application by individual enforcers. The fault is usually not in the law, but in racially biased individuals. Rather than blaming and disavowing valuable law, when it is applied in a discriminatory fashion, the individual who misuses the law should be prosecuted--don't blame the law.

So it is not necessarily a contradiction if supporters of the AZ law think it might lead to discrimination but still support it.

In this case you have a target demographic that's pretty well defined and a law with the potential to impact the daily life of a very large number of legal citizens and non-citizens who appear to fit the profile.

I'd think the risk factor here is extremely high and more than a simple perhaps.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

In this case you have a target demographic that's pretty well defined

Yes. The target demographic is people who are here illegally.

and a law with the potential to impact the daily life of a very large number of legal citizens

Yes. It has the potential to improve the economic and safety issues of legal citizens.

and non-citizens who appear to fit the profile.

Only those who are here illegally. Some "potential" for discrimination, but that would also be illegal and "potential" cannot be a test for the law's validity.

I'd think the risk factor here is extremely high and more than a simple perhaps. -spence

Absolutely. There is an extremely high risk to illegal aliens.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't buy the polls, or at least don't think the really reinforce the point.

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.
-spence

Spence even CNN talking heads say 55 % of americans agree with the AZ law.

All Judge Bolton did was point out to Arizona lawmakers the three sections of the law that needs fine-tuning and the law would likely be enforceable. Ah, good old reasonable suspicion........................oops!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! When an officer of the law has reason to believe that a crime is about to be committed or has been committed.

[JohnR]

Hey, Spence, let me clear something out for you.

Yes, many Americans feel that there may be some potential increased discrimination but the majority of Americans recognize a few simple, easy to factor points:

1) If I am pulled over for potential illegal or suspicious activity I need to produce my identification - AND I WAS BORN here. Someone not here legally should not have a higher level of protection than those here legally.

2) People that are not citizens should go though proper LEGAL channels to become citizens. Ignoring the law when convenient is breaking the law.

3) There are more problems created by illegal citizens than legal citizens, be it law enforcement, costs and entitlements, taxes, etc.

Would love to type out more but going to bed.

Please give me three reasons why we are better off as we are now with porous borders?

[justplugit]

AMEN ,JR.
As Americans we should be Proud to show we are citizens of the United States especially since our ancestors waited their turn to come here legally, studied and became citizens,adopted the US to be their home and called themselves Americans and worked to make a better life for their families. No handouts.

Showing ID is no different then showing your voting registration card in order to have the ,privlidge to vote.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Showing ID is no different then showing your voting registration card in order to have the ,privlidge to vote.

funny that many of the same folks/groups that oppose the Arizona law also oppose any requirement to show an ID to vote....probably just a coincidence

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

1) If I am pulled over for potential illegal or suspicious activity I need to produce my identification - AND I WAS BORN here. Someone not here legally should not have a higher level of protection than those here legally.

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.

2) People that are not citizens should go though proper LEGAL channels to become citizens. Ignoring the law when convenient is breaking the law.

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

3) There are more problems created by illegal citizens than legal citizens, be it law enforcement, costs and entitlements, taxes, etc.

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

Please give me three reasons why we are better off as we are now with porous borders?

Again, that's not the point. The legal argument against the AZ law isn't that illegals are good for the country, I'd think only a very small minority would voice this opinion.

Although, you do seem to be proving the point I was trying to make.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.

-spence

National support is based on a desire and the overwhelming approval of a State taking action when the Feds refuse to.....the "controversial elements" that you describe are only controversial in the minds of illegals and their enablers...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.

And we need to legally provide proper documentation (Birt certs, Passports, SS card, various ID cards,in order to get the proper identification that 97% of us will show to a law enforcement officer should we run a foul of the law.

We also need to use said identification when applying tax forms when taking a new job.

Originally Posted by spence

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

The laws that are conspicuously not being followed / enforced?

Originally Posted by spence

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

And the proponents of this bill would argue that the lack of the Federal guvmint's involvement / success in enforcing existing laws.

Originally Posted by spence

Again, that's not the point. The legal argument against the AZ law isn't that illegals are good for the country, I'd think only a very small minority would voice this opinion.

Although, you do seem to be proving the point I was trying to make.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.

-spence

- I apologize, sometimes I have this habit of looking at this issue at the National as well as state aspect. I understand others ignore at the national level as well as the state level.

I do not see a problem with the state law that in its essence asks people to obey the law, and follow the law, or there will be the potential for consequences. As long as reasonable assurances for the respect for human rights can be maintained. This bill tries to put more teeth into fighting illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

I want more legal immigrants to come to this country and become Americans. Legal, pulling the same oar to help our kids get smarter, more entrepreneurial spirit, and to grow our nation, because that make sense and helps us to grow. Otherwise we become stagnant.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.

Jurisdiction is not an issue. Federal jurisdiction is not infringed. AZ law assists, does not usurp, the Federal Government in finding illegals. Actual guilt, not presumed guilt, is the target.

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

As JR says, the laws are not being properly enforced. Law without enforcement is law that does not exist. Normally, the Federal Government appreciates and encourages local assistance. It is, after all, so "overburdened." The AZ law actually makes the Federal law more meaningful by assisting in its enforcement.

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

There is no possibility that the AZ law can "usurp" Federal law. Any state law that did so (not possible) would be struck down. The AZ law "usurps" no Federal law, no Federal power, no Federal action. It "potentially" assists the Federal Government. There is no special targeting of legal citizens or legal aliens. They are all subject to the same law enforcement. Any "potential" discrimination that occurs from improper enforcement is subject to reverse suits and monetary compensation.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.-spence

It's based on the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to do, rather than the Government doing a piss poor, less than half-hearted, job, and then rejecting help to do what it seems incapable of doing. Which controversial elements? What the Federal Government is doing and not doing, is extremely controversial.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jurisdiction is not an issue. Federal jurisdiction is not infringed. AZ law assists, does not usurp, the Federal Government in finding illegals. Actual guilt, not presumed guilt, is the target.

Not according to the Federal judge, who believe the AZ law interferes with the Feds ability to set and enforce a consistent policy.

That you disagree with that issue doesn't make it wrong, it's just an interpretation. I'm sure the higher courts will be chiming in soon.

As JR says, the laws are not being properly enforced. Law without enforcement is law that does not exist. Normally, the Federal Government appreciates and encourages local assistance. It is, after all, so "overburdened." The AZ law actually makes the Federal law more meaningful by assisting in its enforcement.

I would think a Conservative would argue that the solution is better Federal enforcement, rather than additional legislation that will increase the size of government through State mandates which also may burden local law enforcement.

There is no possibility that the AZ law can "usurp" Federal law. Any state law that did so (not possible) would be struck down. The AZ law "usurps" no Federal law, no Federal power, no Federal action. It "potentially" assists the Federal Government. There is no special targeting of legal citizens or legal aliens. They are all subject to the same law enforcement. Any "potential" discrimination that occurs from improper enforcement is subject to reverse suits and monetary compensation.

Interfering with Federal priorities and could be construed as the same thing. If the Feds want to focus on drugs, and the local Sheriff is rounding up a hundred day workers to hand over to ICE, you might just have a resource issue.

It's based on the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to do, rather than the Government doing a piss poor, less than half-hearted, job, and then rejecting help to do what it seems incapable of doing. Which controversial elements? What the Federal Government is doing and not doing, is extremely controversial.

So the answer again is to focus on more stringent Federal enforcement which Obama appears to be doing.

-spence