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

[wink]

I don't think it's so unrealistic. It doesn't really matter, though, because it will only take one case of harassment of a citizen followed by a civil lawsuit for this law to go in the gutter.

An abuse lawsuit by a citizen will not send this law to the gutter because abuse is outside the intent of the law. An aggrieved citizen will get money, not an unconstitutional law. Now there are a couple constitutional challenges coming. That is fine. If you actually look at the recent case law on this sort of thing it does not portend an unconstitutional ruling. Only people saying it is going down are the usual partisan suspects.

Drugs curtailed in NYC? I really don't think so, and I certainly don't think it's worth the millions of tax dollars it takes to house someone in jail because they had a nickel bag of weed on them. More importantly, I don't think it's worth the climate it creates where police officers think it's okay to disregard search and seizure rights in an effort to put people in jail for having a nickel bag of weed.

I didn't say drugs have been curtailed in NYC. There HAS been a demonstrable improvement in quality of life in NYC since Rudy started the law and order crack down. Enforcement of laws long ignored and increased police on the streets does not create the climate you fear. It is poor leadership and training. Moreover, it matters little if the good citizens of NYC are happy with the law enforcement service they get. Many parts of NYC are now livable for ordinary people. The cost to make those changes is more then recovered by increased business revenue, tourism, lower insurance expenses, etc.

I would agree that these are all real costs of illegal immigration, but I would also point out that the people shouldering the burden are the same people who enjoy dirt cheap construction work, fruit and vegetables, and lawn care thanks to a work force in these businesses largely populated by illegal immigrants. I would be very interested to see a study that analyzes all of these factors to see if the cost of sending illegal immigrants to public schools or treating them at hospitals exceeds the economic benefits of cheap manual labor. Presumably, most of these people wouldn't be paying income taxes if they were legal, anyway, since they'd be below the line for paying taxes. Illegal immigrants do, however, still pay property and sales taxes, the former of which is the primary funding source for school districts.

So it is OK to exploit illegal immigrants since they are using our hospitals and public schools? This is the big liberal secret. Their opposition to enforcement perpetuates the exploitation of illegal labor. Shame on them. I suspect very few of the illegal immigrants own property that they pay taxes on. They rent.

 

[hokieav8r]

Something I've always wondered about: when you drive on base, you become subject to a virtual unlimited ''agree to search of your person and/or vehicle'' ... no questions asked, I believe.

What's the difference?? 'Cause it's a military/federal reservation??

A4s noone ever answered you. It's because when you are on the reservation, you are subject to another set of rules set forth in the interest of security of our Armed Forces while on base, and that means you are also subject to the UCMJ above and beyond Federal and State Law if you are an Servicemen.

If you are talking about going onto a base overseas as a retiree or someone who has an ID card as a reservist/guardsman or something of the like, then you may fall under Federal Customs Law in crossing what is the Functional Equivalent of the Border (FEB) (going from foreign land onto the base = crossing into the US, and you may be subject to a search that requires Zero Suspicion to do so. I am not positive of the latter and will do some research, but it makes sense in terms of how they look at the sovereignty of the land the base stands on.

 

[wink]

You may have heard the high handed statements by Los Angles Mayor Villaraigosa and others on the LA city council in voting to boycott Arizona over the illegal immigration bill. What you may not know is that their boycott is not comprehensive. AZ provides 25 % of the utilities used by LA, and that was exempt from the boycott, so much for strength of conviction. Now, at least one AZ government official has offered to help LA with their moral dissonance. AZ can play hard ball too!!!

http://www.azcc.gov/commissioners/pierce/Letters.asp

 

[eas7888]

You may have heard the high handed statements by Los Angles Mayor Villaraigosa and others on the LA city council in voting to boycott Arizona over the illegal immigration bill. What you may not know is that their boycott is not comprehensive. AZ provides 25 % of the utilities used by LA, and that was exempt from the boycott, so much for strength of conviction. Now, at least one AZ government official has offered to help LA with their moral dissonance. AZ can play hard ball too!!!

http://www.azcc.gov/commissioners/pierce/Letters.asp

It would be an interesting experiment to see how long LA would last with reduced water and electricity.

 

[Pugs]

You may have heard the high handed statements by Los Angles Mayor Villaraigosa and others on the LA city council in voting to boycott Arizona over the illegal immigration bill. What you may not know is that their boycott is not comprehensive. AZ provides 25 % of the utilities used by LA, and that was exempt from the boycott, so much for strength of conviction. Now, at least one AZ government official has offered to help LA with their moral dissonance. AZ can play hard ball too!!!

http://www.azcc.gov/commissioners/pierce/Letters.asp

That's awsome and in fact may provide another basis for the Fedral government to be forced to do their job on border security based on some interepretation of interstate commerce being affected. Of course, it could go just as badly for AZ based on affecting interstate commerce. What is sure in either case is that the Feds will have to come to some sort of hand forcing here if we keep going down this road.

For my 2 cents AZ is on the right track here.

 

[Spekkio]

So it is OK to exploit illegal immigrants since they are using our hospitals and public schools? This is the big liberal secret. Their opposition to enforcement perpetuates the exploitation of illegal labor. Shame on them. I suspect very few of the illegal immigrants own property that they pay taxes on. They rent.

I find it odd that you throw the "L-word" at me when using the concept of "labor exploitation," which is a purely leftist ideal.

No one is exploiting anyone here; the people we're talking about come to the U.S. under their own free will. They work for low wages under their own free will. They do this because the alternative -- living in poverty in Latin America -- is far worse than living in America's version of poverty.

I didn't say drugs have been curtailed in NYC. There HAS been a demonstrable improvement in quality of life in NYC since Rudy started the law and order crack down. Enforcement of laws long ignored and increased police on the streets does not create the climate you fear. It is poor leadership and training. Moreover, it matters little if the good citizens of NYC are happy with the law enforcement service they get. Many parts of NYC are now livable for ordinary people. The cost to make those changes is more then recovered by increased business revenue, tourism, lower insurance expenses, etc.

To link this improvement to tougher drug enforcement simplifies the issue.

In crime studies across the nation, many cities saw a rise and fall in crime linked to the popularity of crack in the 80s-90s. Interestingly enough, the vast majority of arrests made in NYC regarding drugs in the past 10-15 years are for marijuana, which is the drug least linked to violent crimes, rampant poverty, and overdose deaths. When I googled marijuana arrests in NYC, I got a ton of news articles, including the two linked below. When I googled crack arrests in NYC, I couldn't find any articles on the first page...but articles about "cracking down on marijuana" popped up. Additionally, something like 80-90% of those arrests are made on minorities, despite the white people toke up more. I guess those massive numbers of cops need to do something "productive." So yes, it does lead exactly to the type of climate I fear.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-sayegh/new-york-citys-massive-ma_b_269384.html
http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Glenn...juanaArrestsinNYC-LevineTestimony-5-31-07.pdf

And arrests like these are contrary to improving the quality of life...drug crime records make it more difficult for people to find employment, thus hurting the economy in the city while putting an undue burden on the taxpayers.

 

[wink]

I find it odd that you throw the "L-word" at me when using the concept of "labor exploitation," which is a purely leftist ideal.

No one is exploiting anyone here; the people we're talking about come to the U.S. under their own free will. They work for low wages under their own free will. They do this because the alternative -- living in poverty in Latin America -- is far worse than living in America's version of poverty.

How is it not exploitation to advantage of someones undocumented status by hiring them to work for less then market wages? Lefty's that take the short view and consider themselves the savior of illegal immigrants because they help shield them from enforcement, deportations or barriers, legal and physical, to illegal border crossing simply perpetuated the exploitation of these workers, thereby giving some benefit to business at the expense of people. In so doing, the tide continues to roll and with it rapes, drugs, kidnappings, extortions and tuberculosis out breaks. These horrors befall the immigrant far more then the legal resident. Big picture, long term, right of center policies on immigration are more humane and just.

 

[Spekkio]

How is it not exploitation to advantage of someones undocumented status by hiring them to work for less then market wages?

They aren't working for less than market wages; they're working for less than government mandated wages. Big difference.

And it's not exploitation because the people who take the jobs make that decision. At any moment they are free to work for someone else or go back to wherever they came from.

Is it exploitation to hire a college student on internship for free rather than pay someone $30k/year to do the same job?

 

[A4sForever]

They aren't working for less than market wages; they're working for less than government mandated wages. Big difference.

Spekkio ... you gotta' keep one thing in the forefront of your cerebral cortex: it's ALL ABOUT VOTES/FUTURE VOTES ... IN THIS COUNTRY !!!

It's all about political control IN THIS COUNTRY ...anything else is a diversion and is bullshit.

 

[Spekkio]

I agree.

And of course here's the NYPD keeping people safe by enforcing those forgotten laws. But this can't happen in AZ somehow.

 

[wink]

They aren't working for less than market wages; they're working for less than government mandated wages. Big difference.

Do you know anything about economics? Hiring illegal aliens is a against the law. It also brings other risks to the business/employer. So, to make it worth the risk the employer has to get something more out of the arrangement then simple labor he can get without the risk from a legal employee. What he gets is lower labor costs. What the hell do you mean, by the less then govt wages verses market. They work for less then market wages. The lowest wage in the market may or may not be a minimum govt wage. There is no effective difference. Most illegals get paid less then legal workers.

And it's not exploitation because the people who take the jobs make that decision. At any moment they are free to work for someone else or go back to wherever they came from.

ex•ploi•ta•tion
1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage.
2 Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes.

Makes no matter if you are free to leave. We aren't talking slavery, although that happens in the human smuggling trade these days.

Is it exploitation to hire a college student on internship for free rather than pay someone $30k/year to do the same job?

No, and not because the college student can leave or refuse. It is because the deal made for the students labor was made without the presence of external pressure or influence. The illegal immigrant needs to eat, he needs money and will take the black market deal to not be deported. The student doesn't need the internship to sustain himself. In fact, he finds the value of the internship in experience, networking and education to be $30K per year or more. If he was offered an internship he valued at $40K a year, he would take that over the internship valued at $30K. The market values legal labor for landscaping at, say $9.00/hour. But the employer puts the value of the risk and hassle associated with hiring an illegal at $2/hour, so the illegal is hired at $7.00/hour and the employer pockets the balance. That is exploitation. You are an economic moron.

 

[A4sForever]

UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE:

I love the hypocrisy ... the President of Mexico -- that motherfucker -- comes TO THIS COUNTRY -- OUR COUNTRY ... and states that 'his people' are discriminated against here ... he states that 'we' CRIMINALIZE IMMIGRATION ... and our President stands next to him and effectively goes ''yup, yup, yup'' as he does NOTHING to dissuade the disscussion ... incredible on the face of it.

Try pulling the shit in Mexico that Mexican ILLEGALs pull in this country ... see what happens to 'ya ...

Our 'anti-AZ-leaders' in this country have not even read the AZ bill ...

Hypocrisy ... demagoguery ... the verbal excrement of the enablers and the left. We need some leadership in this country -- we have none at present. We need a sea-change in November ...

Otherwise ... I fear for the future of my Country.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Money helps but most illegals aren't exactly swimming in it.

I wasn't referring to money. You certainly don't have to have a lot of money to influence elections either.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I agree with you that we shouldn't have illegal aliens voting in elections. However, eliminating illegal immigration entirely and stopping voter fraud entirely are impossible goals.

So is stopping the sale and use of crack cocaine or drunk driving. So using your rationale that it's an impossible goal, are we supposed to not even enforce those particular laws as well? Illegal immigrants (i.e. those people that are in this country illegally, from any country of origin) should not be voting. They should not be driving. They should not be working. And, they have no right to representation in the State and Federal legislatures. I keep hearing a lot of boo hoo'ing from the left on this issue, yet offer no suggestions on how to correct the problem.

...and that some red-blooded "Amurcuns" get offended at the thought of someone speaking a language other than English while residing here

Nice try but no. The issue has more to do with the lack of assimilation into our culture which means learning the language we speak here. If they want to speak their native language among friends and family, more power to em. However, English is the common language in the country and they should be expected to learn it AND use it when conducting business. Hell, they should WANT to learn it if they want to live here. The fact that they don't says a lot.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

You may have heard the high handed statements by Los Angles Mayor Villaraigosa and others on the LA city council in voting to boycott Arizona over the illegal immigration bill. What you may not know is that their boycott is not comprehensive. AZ provides 25 % of the utilities used by LA, and that was exempt from the boycott, so much for strength of conviction. Now, at least one AZ government official has offered to help LA with their moral dissonance. AZ can play hard ball too!!!

http://www.azcc.gov/commissioners/pierce/Letters.asp

Seattle did the same thing. They passed a boycott of AZ (unanimous I believe) but exempted a specific company based in AZ that provides services for their revenue generating devices.....oops, I mean traffic cameras. Yeah, so much for principles. Hypocrites.