This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Your first "no" pretty much says it all. I sincerely hope that someone you genuinely care about isn't one of those 9+M you're willing to sacrifice before you feel comfortable enough to want to take action to stop the kind of madness happening in AZ.I asked you to help me understand, then you go and ask me a bunch of #### questions.No. 9,426,622. No. No. Huh? What? My username is phthalatemagic.
Apparently your sense of rhetoric is down, or you are incredibly ignorant. I'll assume the former...
Interesting. I read "lawful contact" as any contact not "unlawful", i.e. assault, false imprisonment/arrest. I don't think an officer needs a reasonable suspicion to make 'lawful contact' with a civilian.
Good job evading the question again.
Is this necessary?
It's interesting to me that you read this article and say "hmm, we should really stop illegal immigration."While I read the article and say "hmm, we should really end the silly war on drugs."
And the vast majority of that crime is associated with the illegal drug trade. This crime can be eliminated quite swiftly if people are actually serious about getting rid of it (which most people aren't - they just spout empty rhetoric and aren't willing to do what it takes to solve the problem.)Legalize and regulate marijuana, cocaine, and heroin and the crime problem is solved. You would also have a lot few illegals trying to cross the border.
I agree with you that 'police state' is hyperbole, but I don't think this law parallels federal law.
It's a real good right wing talking point though since there's oh so many other places in America where you can be forced to produce a passport (or other document) proving you have a right to be here in you're daily life.
This is a pretty sweeping generalization.What % of immigrants involved in violent criminal behavior would be acceptable to you btw?
What does the Federal law state regarding this as it pertains to enforcing citizen/illegal status, specifically regarding probable cause and identification? Are they similar to the AZ law just passed? You act informed, but I'm not sure that you are.
Given his posturing? Yes.
Because he continues to irritate you by asking you to answer questions directly, rather than keep replying by asking more questions? I don't really understand why that upsets you.
probable cause is a higher threshold than reasonable suspicion....perhaps you are the one who is misinformed
Obama, both Bushes, Clinton, the majority of the Congresses during those administartions, and the open border advocates would disagree, and moreover most designate you to be racist.
Jeb Bush is your man...Tim.
Ignoring the racists part and just concentrating on "the open border advocates". One of my problems in this debate is that this issue is not partisan. It is not the right that screams for "closed borders" and the left that screams for "open borders" or vice versa, but instead it seems that the issue is largely defined by political and economic clout. That is it is the vast majority of ordinary American citizens that are for closing the borders, rounding up "the illegals", etc. - one of Timmy's populous movements while those that have the economic and political clout to major players in how this nation is run are largely for either the "the status quo", "amnesty", or outright open borders. Roadkill states that he isn't convinced about the economic argument that the illegal immigrants are a net positive for the economy, but it seems that those with the most at stake economically are not on the side of tougher immigration enforcement policies. So while I'm not going to pretend to know the math as to full blown economic impact on the nation, it does cause me to pause when I see who is for and against various enforcement policies. Along the same lines, it was just a few years ago when the Bush administration was advocating the senate bill that would have added over 100 million new legal immigrants. What did they know that we don't when it comes to such a large number? I wish I knew.Bronco Billy said:
Many people who study economics understand the benefits of free trade, free markets, and open immigration. F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Mises, and Milton Friedman among others have all written extensively about this subject.
Youi're right that you are not 50s racists- but I should point out that the bolded argument was always made by 50s racists...
No, I don't think it does and the stretch you have to make to get there would throw your back out.Thorn said:
So, officials in Mexico demogouge the new law and stir up emotion based on nothing and a poster here makes an assumption and you go there?timschochet said:
I don't see many people pretending to know AZ's problems. We're listening to those of you in AZ tell us that drug-related crimes are a major problem.
The sheriff has basically zero credibility. You already know that, but choose to disregard it because his comments serve your purpose.
Yet he gets re-elected, term after term by people who live in Arizona and understand its problems...we all must be racists for that to happen.
Bloomberg's main thrust was that this law would hurt travel. You ridiculed it. It looks like Bloomberg might be right.
There are incredible differences, but that was not my point. My point is that its a weak argument, then or now, to say, "You don't live here, so you don't understand our problems." Its the argument of people who can't win by resorting to reason and logic, and so they're left with this.
The differences here are profound, but I'd expect somebody of your caliber to fail to see the VAST differences.
My sister was for many years a Marketing Director for a retail development company that owned Scottsdale Fashion Square, the Biltmore, the Borgata, Chandler Fashion Center, etc. She would routinely advertise in Nogales, Mexico and other parts of Sonora to attract the more affluent Mexicans to go up to Phoenix and shop. They would target the advertising around the typical seasonal shopping highs such as back to school, Labor Day and Christmas, so it was not as if there was a constant influx of shoppers coming across the border. But the amount of money they spent when they did come across was significant enough to warrant the continued advertising expense (and then some). I lived in Tucson much of my life, and can personally state from experience that the Sonorans would come to Tucson as well for their shopping needs, particularly at the Tucson Mall and Costco (of which the location in the eastern part of town is one of the largest earners in the entire company). Those who choose to shop in Tucson likely aren't as wealthy as the shoppers in the posh Scottsdale malls, but they would carry massive rolls of rubber-banded cash with them regardless.bigbottom said:
It's a terrible argument. First, I and others have tried to demonstrate how a law like this affects the rest of us as well, not just Arizona.But even if that were not so, LHUCKS, who lives in Arizona, has demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of Arizona's problems. He believes this law will save money; it won't. He believes it will help fight drug cartels; it won't. He believes that illegals are the main source of Arizona's crime problems; they aren't.
That wasn't really an argument, more of an observation.Plenty of good arguments have been made in this thread...from people who are not from AZ.
Well, you may have lived in Tuscon, but obviously LHUCKs is a TRUE Arizonan, and you're nothing more than a carpetbagger. You can't possibly know what is good for Arizona.
I may have misinterpreted the "for any lawful contact ... where reasonable suspicion exists," but it suggested to me that the lawful contact could come before a reasonable suspicion.
yes it will
yes it will
I never said they were the main source, just a major source...please don't make #### up.
IMHO, the economic impact is being overemphasized. Retail sales are not even close to a significant source of revenue for our state.Classic mistake of overemphasizing a personal anecdote.
Bloomberg's main thrust was that this is a racist law supported by people who don't think rationally - i.e. like him. If you are all for rhetorical puffery then yes, Bloomberg has a point - the ignorant and those who like to cry racism when the wind blows a black mans hat off, will still do so with this new law, and some sheep will follow (see, this thread). However, if you actually read the law, something I'm guessing Mike didn't do because if he did his first point makes no sense, and then connect it to current Arizona law as well current federal law, this does not become the harbinger of the new Facist American regime that some here are making it out to be.It's arguments like Bloomberg's, and frankly yours, that make people shy away from your stance and get more militant in opposition to you. IF you support this bill in any way, or even support the idea of it, you are labeled a hate mongering ignorant racist that wants all brown people arrested or even better, shot in the street and left there to rot. The reaction to such attacks is defensive, and the stronger the attack the more defensive the person gets. This thread has already gotten to the point that I am starting to wonder if the law isn't a net good simply because of the statements you have made here, with a liberal assist from the usual suspects. If all of you are this much against it, there is probably some good in it.And that is after I actually read the thing and dissected it and initiall came to the conclusion that it's a bad idea. Not for any useless politically rhetorical flash of useless language and empty personal attacks, but because of on the ground legal and executive power practice. But you guys have to fall right back into the racism game. It's repulsive. To add to it you actually have the audacity to post something along the lines that if Arizona wanted to do something about crime they should ignore illegals and focus on citizens. That kind of comment is so off the wall bat**** crazy that I'm a loss as to how to respond, whether it was entirely meant or sarcastic - because there are actually people in this thread that agree with the sentiment.The illegal immigration in this country is a mess. It has led to - with an able assist from a ton of other laws and policies - a de facto border war going on right now in the Southwest. Instead of the typical liberal talking points that treat every attempt at a rational conversation as child's rambling, the adults in this country need to quiet people like you down and actually deal with the issue. In other words, you hurt your own cause by being such an overbearing atack dog without any form of common sense or actual facts rooted in the law you are discussing to back you up. Is it possible this law leads to unintended results? Sure. That is why people like me scream every November that elections in every form matter. The people you put in charge that write the policy, train the cops, and so on matter. And even if you are active every way possible you can't stop every possible bad actor from doing something bad. This is why there are so many different levels of government in this nation - to temper those problems with other actors in an effort to ensure that liberty and freedom win out above all. That there is a pause. That there is cooperation among the governments. And in that is the true problem in all of this because our national government has failed to do its duty here. And so the states are picking up the slack. We shouldn't be mad at Arizona for doing this - we should be throwing every federal official under the bus they drove there to ignore this issue unless it buys them votes. There has been a lack of leadership from all wings of the political parties on this issue for far too long, and as you know from your Civil War thread, when the central government doesn't step in and do its job, the states will react. They don't do it that much anymore, but they still have the potential.It's also possible that this law is actually administered rationally, decently, and fairly, and that no mom is pulled away from her child on the street corner, thrown into a Crown Victoria trunk driven and then dumped over the border without so much as a warning. Or maybe, just maybe, the fedeeral government actually begins to do its constitutional duty (I know, I know, you don't need to laugh it is possible) and protect the borders of this nation and proscribe and execute sound and effective immigration policy.
Drug Kingpin: You need to gather a team and kidnap Inigo Montoya and his family.Subordinate: We can't, Arizona is getting totally badass on illegal immigrants.Drug Kingpin: Crap. OK, let's go bowling instead.Bronco Billy said:
For the record, when I posted the blurb about AeroMexico cancelling flights from Mexico to Arizona due to a drop in demand, I merely suggested that it was something to factor into the mix.
Point taken. But LHUCKS and homerism go together like a hangover and a nice bowl of hot menudo. Actually, that may be a poor analogy as menudo is reputed to be a hangover cure (and works quite well if you ask this second generation Mexican American). There is no cure for LHUCKS' homerism; it is a force of nature.
I understand that if you believe in free markets then you must include the free movement of labor to and from jobs. And I understand the economic benefits of finding labor willing to do jobs when other interferences in the market have shrunk those willing to perform the jobs at the price level offered. I don't think that any of the closed border advocates are going to deny that illegal immigrants expand the nations GDP by some amount, but that instead they are arguing that the costs of this economic growth is more than offset in other areas. Again, I'm sure that you'll and those mentioned above agree that there are some offsetting costs to open borders (real or quasi), but in net the benefits outweigh these costs. What I'm saying is that I just don't know where to go to find the information so I can decide for myself the real gross costs and the real gross benefits so I can figure out a real net.Also, even if I could find such numbers that I trusted on the national level that still doesn't mean that the same conclusion can be reached on a local level. It might very well be the case, and I lean this way that overall our current level of policies and enforcement (or lack of enforcement) is really benefiting our nation as a whole, but at greater costs for the people in Arizona than we should expect them to pay. And I also think having laws that aren't being enforced eventually has its own cost that we should try to avoid. So if you are reading this and am not sure where I stand on immigration then you understand my position of
.
So you're allowing Tim's arguments to change your mind on a position that you reached through research and substantive reflection?
More like, COP: Those guys look shady as hell, kind of like those guys that gunned down that family last weekCOPII: I wish we had the latitude to check them out real quickCOPI: Yeah, oh well, let's go get some coffee
Yikes.FWIW, I agree with the bolded. I just think this law is destined to be overinclusive, if not on paper, then in practice.
Figured.
