Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (5 Viewers)

[SofaKings]

So our immigration policy and the laws that make it up are morally bankrupt? You people are loons. "It's the enforcement(or lack thereof), stupid!"

Go read some history and then report back.

You first.

 

[timschochet]

So our immigration policy and the laws that make it up are morally bankrupt? You people are loons. "It's the enforcement(or lack thereof), stupid!"

Go read some history and then report back.

Okay, I read it all. Now what?

Now you change your position, become a liberal (just on this issue) and come out against this law.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

So our immigration policy and the laws that make it up are morally bankrupt? You people are loons. "It's the enforcement(or lack thereof), stupid!"

Go read some history and then report back.

Okay, I read it all. Now what?

I'm curious what ideal immigration policy you (or SofaKings) would articulate. At least in your case, I expect something relatively carefully considered.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

So our immigration policy and the laws that make it up are morally bankrupt? You people are loons. "It's the enforcement(or lack thereof), stupid!"

Go read some history and then report back.

Okay, I read it all. Now what?

Now you change your position, become a liberal (just on this issue) and come out against this law.

Conservatives -- at least real conservatives (i.e., classical liberals) -- should be against this law too.

 

[bg0546]

Why do people resort to this sort of stuff? Yesterday Mookie Blaylock was suspended for wishing me dead (along with Obama). I agree with Michael Fox's position on this (I think) and strongly disagree with SofaKings. But that doesn't matter. If you don't have a reasonable argument to back up your position, don't bother posting.

So why are you still posting in illegal immigration threads? You've yet to make a reasonable argument supporting illegals. All you do his harp on how our current laws are "wrong", which of course if "wrong" because you think they're wrong. That's not a reasonable argument.

 

[Christo]

So our immigration policy and the laws that make it up are morally bankrupt? You people are loons. "It's the enforcement(or lack thereof), stupid!"

Go read some history and then report back.

Okay, I read it all. Now what?

Now you change your position, become a liberal (just on this issue) and come out against this law.

Conservatives -- at least real conservatives (i.e., classical liberals) -- should be against this law too.

Perhaps you can articulate why.

 

[Christo]

So our immigration policy and the laws that make it up are morally bankrupt? You people are loons. "It's the enforcement(or lack thereof), stupid!"

Go read some history and then report back.

Okay, I read it all. Now what?

I'm curious what ideal immigration policy you (or SofaKings) would articulate. At least in your case, I expect something relatively carefully considered.

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

 

[timschochet]

Why do people resort to this sort of stuff? Yesterday Mookie Blaylock was suspended for wishing me dead (along with Obama). I agree with Michael Fox's position on this (I think) and strongly disagree with SofaKings. But that doesn't matter. If you don't have a reasonable argument to back up your position, don't bother posting.

So why are you still posting in illegal immigration threads? You've yet to make a reasonable argument supporting illegals. All you do his harp on how our current laws are "wrong", which of course if "wrong" because you think they're wrong. That's not a reasonable argument.

Well. Ummm. Personally I do think my arguments are very reasonable. Sorry you disagree. I have given reasons throughout this thread as to why I believe our laws are wrong on this issue. You may disagree with those issues, but you can't assert I haven't made them.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

 

[bg0546]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Severely? Can you define this within the context of the number of immigrants we allow versus the rest of the world? TIA.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Severely? Can you define this within the context of the number of immigrants we allow versus the rest of the world? TIA.

I don't define it vs the rest of the world. I define it vs the number of immigrants we used to allow in legally. The rest of the world isn't relevant.

 

[timschochet]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Severely? Can you define this within the context of the number of immigrants we allow versus the rest of the world? TIA.

Not an applicable question. What other country is a nation made up of immigrants from so many backgrounds? We are unique in this regard. This is what separates the United States from the rest of the world- the idea that any person can come here and start over. This ideal is essential, IMO, to American freedom. When we sacrifice this ideal over concerns about population and security, we sacrifice the rest of our freedoms with it.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Severely? Can you define this within the context of the number of immigrants we allow versus the rest of the world? TIA.

Not an applicable question. What other country is a nation made up of immigrants from so many backgrounds? We are unique in this regard. This is what separates the United States from the rest of the world- the idea that any person can come here and start over. This ideal is essential, IMO, to American freedom. When we sacrifice this ideal over concerns about population and security, we sacrifice the rest of our freedoms with it.

How do we sacrifice the rest of our freedoms? We simply look like smacked asses. Period. But I don't see how we give up any freedom.

 

[timschochet]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Severely? Can you define this within the context of the number of immigrants we allow versus the rest of the world? TIA.

Not an applicable question. What other country is a nation made up of immigrants from so many backgrounds? We are unique in this regard. This is what separates the United States from the rest of the world- the idea that any person can come here and start over. This ideal is essential, IMO, to American freedom. When we sacrifice this ideal over concerns about population and security, we sacrifice the rest of our freedoms with it.

How do we sacrifice the rest of our freedoms? We simply look like smacked asses. Period. But I don't see how we give up any freedom.

The enforcement of laws designed to restrict immigration cannot be done without violation to civil liberties (which is why the ACLU is fighting these laws.) Once these violations are allowed to take place, acceptance of further violations will be that much easier to accept.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

The enforcement of laws designed to restrict immigration cannot be done without violation to civil liberties (which is why the ACLU is fighting these laws.) Once these violations are allowed to take place, acceptance of further violations will be that much easier to accept.

You are muddling two concepts: 1) morality of tight limitations on immigration, 2) legality of enforcing laws that restrict immigration

 

[Card Trader]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Severely? Can you define this within the context of the number of immigrants we allow versus the rest of the world? TIA.

I don't define it vs the rest of the world. I define it vs the number of immigrants we used to allow in legally. The rest of the world isn't relevant.

 

[bg0546]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Severely? Can you define this within the context of the number of immigrants we allow versus the rest of the world? TIA.

I don't define it vs the rest of the world. I define it vs the number of immigrants we used to allow in legally. The rest of the world isn't relevant.

You're talking about like 80 years ago right? You realize that times have changed, don't you? Or should we continue on and talk about how our gun laws/restrictions have changed, theoretically in violation of the 2nd amendment if one believes in unrestricted gun ownership, as society has evolved and things like AK-47's and rocket launchers have come in to existence. Or do you think we should never adjust our laws to keep up with the times?

 

[bg0546]

The enforcement of laws designed to restrict immigration cannot be done without violation to civil liberties (which is why the ACLU is fighting these laws.) Once these violations are allowed to take place, acceptance of further violations will be that much easier to accept.

This is completely wrong. Whether the AZ law does this is debatable and I'm pretty sure we're end up on opposite sides of that debate. But there's no reason we can't enforce immigration law without violating civil liberties. Our government just chooses not to do so.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Severely? Can you define this within the context of the number of immigrants we allow versus the rest of the world? TIA.

I don't define it vs the rest of the world. I define it vs the number of immigrants we used to allow in legally. The rest of the world isn't relevant.

I have no idea why this is funny to you. Feel free to compare us to, say, Iran or North Korea.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Severely? Can you define this within the context of the number of immigrants we allow versus the rest of the world? TIA.

I don't define it vs the rest of the world. I define it vs the number of immigrants we used to allow in legally. The rest of the world isn't relevant.

You're talking about like 80 years ago right? You realize that times have changed, don't you? Or should we continue on and talk about how our gun laws/restrictions have changed, theoretically in violation of the 2nd amendment if one believes in unrestricted gun ownership, as society has evolved and things like AK-47's and rocket launchers have come in to existence. Or do you think we should never adjust our laws to keep up with the times?

Explain to me what specifically has changed.....and how it implies that we should massively scale back legal immigration (from where it was, say, 80 years ago)

 

[bg0546]

Explain to me what specifically has changed.....and how it implies that we should massively scale back legal immigration (from where it was, say, 80 years ago)

First of all, I suspect in sheer numbers that it hasn't been scaled back at all. However, back then we didn't have limits IIRC while now we do. As far as what has changed, a heck of a lot. For one thing, and this is obviously recent, but back then we were expanding at a great rate and didn't have unemployment in the 15% plus range in large parts of the country. Second, back then pretty much ALL the people coming here were coming to improve their lives and live the American dream. Timmy will tell you that's still the case but we know that many of those coming here are delivering billions of dollars in drugs. Even worse, the cartels are just setting up shop in our national forests and harvesting drugs there. Don't we have an interest in stopping those things from happening? Also, we know terrorists from the middle east are now heading to S. America, learning to imitate the people from down there, and then coming up as illegals. IOW, we have a vested interest in knowing who each and every immigrant is that comes here. Third, our infrastructure simply has not been able to keep up with the flow of illegals. Los Angeles wouldn't even have a gridlock problem right now if not for illegals. The rest of our infrastructure is similarly struggling to keep up with the influx. Schools in areas of high illegal immigrant populations perform terrible and have extremely high dropout rates, our emergency rooms get treated like family practice by illegals, violent crime has spiked in many areas inundated by illegals, etc....The list goes on and on.

 

[Shirtless]

Explain to me what specifically has changed.....and how it implies that we should massively scale back legal immigration (from where it was, say, 80 years ago)

First of all, I suspect in sheer numbers that it hasn't been scaled back at all. However, back then we didn't have limits IIRC while now we do. As far as what has changed, a heck of a lot. For one thing, and this is obviously recent, but back then we were expanding at a great rate and didn't have unemployment in the 15% plus range in large parts of the country. Second, back then pretty much ALL the people coming here were coming to improve their lives and live the American dream. Timmy will tell you that's still the case but we know that many of those coming here are delivering billions of dollars in drugs. Even worse, the cartels are just setting up shop in our national forests and harvesting drugs there. Don't we have an interest in stopping those things from happening? Also, we know terrorists from the middle east are now heading to S. America, learning to imitate the people from down there, and then coming up as illegals. IOW, we have a vested interest in knowing who each and every immigrant is that comes here. Third, our infrastructure simply has not been able to keep up with the flow of illegals. Los Angeles wouldn't even have a gridlock problem right now if not for illegals. The rest of our infrastructure is similarly struggling to keep up with the influx. Schools in areas of high illegal immigrant populations perform terrible and have extremely high dropout rates, our emergency rooms get treated like family practice by illegals, violent crime has spiked in many areas inundated by illegals, etc....The list goes on and on.

Did you just blame traffic on illegal immigration?

 

[bg0546]

Explain to me what specifically has changed.....and how it implies that we should massively scale back legal immigration (from where it was, say, 80 years ago)

First of all, I suspect in sheer numbers that it hasn't been scaled back at all. However, back then we didn't have limits IIRC while now we do. As far as what has changed, a heck of a lot. For one thing, and this is obviously recent, but back then we were expanding at a great rate and didn't have unemployment in the 15% plus range in large parts of the country. Second, back then pretty much ALL the people coming here were coming to improve their lives and live the American dream. Timmy will tell you that's still the case but we know that many of those coming here are delivering billions of dollars in drugs. Even worse, the cartels are just setting up shop in our national forests and harvesting drugs there. Don't we have an interest in stopping those things from happening? Also, we know terrorists from the middle east are now heading to S. America, learning to imitate the people from down there, and then coming up as illegals. IOW, we have a vested interest in knowing who each and every immigrant is that comes here. Third, our infrastructure simply has not been able to keep up with the flow of illegals. Los Angeles wouldn't even have a gridlock problem right now if not for illegals. The rest of our infrastructure is similarly struggling to keep up with the influx. Schools in areas of high illegal immigrant populations perform terrible and have extremely high dropout rates, our emergency rooms get treated like family practice by illegals, violent crime has spiked in many areas inundated by illegals, etc....The list goes on and on.

Did you just blame traffic on illegal immigration?

In areas with high levels of illegal immigration like Los Angeles, yes.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Explain to me what specifically has changed.....and how it implies that we should massively scale back legal immigration (from where it was, say, 80 years ago)

First of all, I suspect in sheer numbers that it hasn't been scaled back at all. However, back then we didn't have limits IIRC while now we do. As far as what has changed, a heck of a lot. For one thing, and this is obviously recent, but back then we were expanding at a great rate and didn't have unemployment in the 15% plus range in large parts of the country. Second, back then pretty much ALL the people coming here were coming to improve their lives and live the American dream. Timmy will tell you that's still the case but we know that many of those coming here are delivering billions of dollars in drugs. Even worse, the cartels are just setting up shop in our national forests and harvesting drugs there. Don't we have an interest in stopping those things from happening? Also, we know terrorists from the middle east are now heading to S. America, learning to imitate the people from down there, and then coming up as illegals. IOW, we have a vested interest in knowing who each and every immigrant is that comes here. Third, our infrastructure simply has not been able to keep up with the flow of illegals. Los Angeles wouldn't even have a gridlock problem right now if not for illegals. The rest of our infrastructure is similarly struggling to keep up with the influx. Schools in areas of high illegal immigrant populations perform terrible and have extremely high dropout rates, our emergency rooms get treated like family practice by illegals, violent crime has spiked in many areas inundated by illegals, etc....The list goes on and on.

Did you just blame traffic on illegal immigration?

Don't stop him, he's on a roll!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And I'd argue that you're missing the larger point: the federal government is neglecting the safety of the citizens of Arizona.

The citizens of Arizona and other border states, border counties are some of the safest in America. The fears of the violence that illegals are causing is based, like most fears used to drive political movements from ignoragnce.

The crime rate in Arizona in 2008 was the lowest it has been in four decades

As often happens with statistics, the same numbers can result in two different conclusions.

measured by violent crimes per 100,000, the non-[Metropolitan Statistical Area] portion of Arizona has seen a dramatic increase in crime.

My 2008 link was from April, why didn't your June 21st rebuttal use 2009 numbers? Numbers that show a continued decline.
But FBI crime reports for 2009 says violent crime in Arizona declined. And violent crimes in southwest border counties are among the lowest in the nation per capita - they've dropped by more than 30 percent in the last two decades.

And accepting your link as fact, still 90+% of Arizona's population have seen constant declines in crime rates for decades, have seen the rates decline faster as immigration has decreased. Now do you believe that the vast influx of immigration has settled in these OMSA and NMSA regions? Are they able to blend in to the rural communities and find employment in large numbers? Or, maybe just maybe those that aren't just passing through settle in and around the cities where there may be jobs. And even if we take Tom Maguire's big 45% increase in crime in these sparsely populated regions at face value, the crime rates have jumped to being still some of the lowest in the nation.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Or do you think we should never adjust our laws to keep up with the times?

Do you mean like the Baby Boomers retiring and the need to find FICA paying workers to replace them to keep the economy from collapsing? How many immigrants did the Senate bill of 2006 that was supported by the president (ETA: in office at the time)allow again?

 

[bg0546]

Explain to me what specifically has changed.....and how it implies that we should massively scale back legal immigration (from where it was, say, 80 years ago)

First of all, I suspect in sheer numbers that it hasn't been scaled back at all. However, back then we didn't have limits IIRC while now we do. As far as what has changed, a heck of a lot. For one thing, and this is obviously recent, but back then we were expanding at a great rate and didn't have unemployment in the 15% plus range in large parts of the country. Second, back then pretty much ALL the people coming here were coming to improve their lives and live the American dream. Timmy will tell you that's still the case but we know that many of those coming here are delivering billions of dollars in drugs. Even worse, the cartels are just setting up shop in our national forests and harvesting drugs there. Don't we have an interest in stopping those things from happening? Also, we know terrorists from the middle east are now heading to S. America, learning to imitate the people from down there, and then coming up as illegals. IOW, we have a vested interest in knowing who each and every immigrant is that comes here. Third, our infrastructure simply has not been able to keep up with the flow of illegals. Los Angeles wouldn't even have a gridlock problem right now if not for illegals. The rest of our infrastructure is similarly struggling to keep up with the influx. Schools in areas of high illegal immigrant populations perform terrible and have extremely high dropout rates, our emergency rooms get treated like family practice by illegals, violent crime has spiked in many areas inundated by illegals, etc....The list goes on and on.

Did you just blame traffic on illegal immigration?

Don't stop him, he's on a roll!

Note to self. Don't ever bother yourself actually putting together an intelligent reply to Michael Fox. And don't forget to have his handle renamed to "michael fox fan".

 

[RCon]

1. If a law is unjust, then it should not be obeyed. Even if a law is just, if the cost to society of enforcing it is greater than the gain to society achieved by enforcing it, then the law should not be enforced.2. It is true that most Americans do not share my viewpoint on this issue. That doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make me right. I don't take any comfort when the majority agrees with me, so it doesn't cause me to question myself now. Hopefully the courts will agree with me; guess we'll see. 3. Don't blame Obama for "refusing to help out." He's only the latest in a long line of presidents, Republican and Democrat, who have done nothing to enforce the deportation of illegal immigrants. When will people realize that there is a reason nothing is done? It's because the results people want is impossible, and even to attempt it will make things worse. 4. The murders across the border need to stop. Whatever it takes to do so, let's do it. This law does NOTHING to alleviate those problems.

1. Who decides which laws are just and which are not? Should everyone go around indiscriminately breaking laws they don't like?2. No, the fact that you're in the minority doesn't necessarily make you wrong, especially with respect to the American public. However, does it give you pause that you're also on the opposite side of this issue from almost all of the posters on this site whose opinions you otherwise respect?3. The results people want aren't impossible. In fact, it would be quite simple (again, $100K fine for every incident of employing illegals). The reason this isn't done is because it wouldn't be good for politicians' warchests in terms of campaign contributions, not because of any altruistic or noble sentiments on the part of the Presidents.

Bump for timschochet...

 

[timschochet]

1. If a law is unjust, then it should not be obeyed. Even if a law is just, if the cost to society of enforcing it is greater than the gain to society achieved by enforcing it, then the law should not be enforced.2. It is true that most Americans do not share my viewpoint on this issue. That doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make me right. I don't take any comfort when the majority agrees with me, so it doesn't cause me to question myself now. Hopefully the courts will agree with me; guess we'll see. 3. Don't blame Obama for "refusing to help out." He's only the latest in a long line of presidents, Republican and Democrat, who have done nothing to enforce the deportation of illegal immigrants. When will people realize that there is a reason nothing is done? It's because the results people want is impossible, and even to attempt it will make things worse. 4. The murders across the border need to stop. Whatever it takes to do so, let's do it. This law does NOTHING to alleviate those problems.

1. Who decides which laws are just and which are not? Should everyone go around indiscriminately breaking laws they don't like?2. No, the fact that you're in the minority doesn't necessarily make you wrong, especially with respect to the American public. However, does it give you pause that you're also on the opposite side of this issue from almost all of the posters on this site whose opinions you otherwise respect?3. The results people want aren't impossible. In fact, it would be quite simple (again, $100K fine for every incident of employing illegals). The reason this isn't done is because it wouldn't be good for politicians' warchests in terms of campaign contributions, not because of any altruistic or noble sentiments on the part of the Presidents.

Bump for timschochet...

1. I am referrring to government enforcement of laws. However, if you find yourself faced with an immoral law, you as an individual have a moral right to break it- somewhere else I used the example of the Underground Railroad. I don't think this law reaches that level, though. I would like to see it defeated in the courts. But if this does not happen, then the Arizona police need to enforce it as best they can. I don't think they will be successful, and that will lead eventually to its overturn even if the courts do not.2. On economic issues, the people that I respect the most are free market libertarian type like F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Freidman, and Ayn Rand. I believe they would all support my position on this issue. As far as posters here, I would say that most of those who are fiscally conservative, as I am, don't appreciate the connection between free markets and free labor in the way that I do. That's not a putdown- I guess we just see it differently. 3. We've been over this before. They are impossible. The fine you propose would simply lead to greater corruption, and if you were successful in enforcing it, it would result in not only a much more intrusive government (and violation of civil liberties beyond anything imagined) but also a terrible result for our economy. I agree with you that politicians do not act of either common sense or altruistic motives, but that is not limited to this issue.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Explain to me what specifically has changed.....and how it implies that we should massively scale back legal immigration (from where it was, say, 80 years ago)

First of all, I suspect in sheer numbers that it hasn't been scaled back at all. However, back then we didn't have limits IIRC while now we do. As far as what has changed, a heck of a lot. For one thing, and this is obviously recent, but back then we were expanding at a great rate and didn't have unemployment in the 15% plus range in large parts of the country. Second, back then pretty much ALL the people coming here were coming to improve their lives and live the American dream. Timmy will tell you that's still the case but we know that many of those coming here are delivering billions of dollars in drugs. Even worse, the cartels are just setting up shop in our national forests and harvesting drugs there. Don't we have an interest in stopping those things from happening? Also, we know terrorists from the middle east are now heading to S. America, learning to imitate the people from down there, and then coming up as illegals. IOW, we have a vested interest in knowing who each and every immigrant is that comes here. Third, our infrastructure simply has not been able to keep up with the flow of illegals. Los Angeles wouldn't even have a gridlock problem right now if not for illegals. The rest of our infrastructure is similarly struggling to keep up with the influx. Schools in areas of high illegal immigrant populations perform terrible and have extremely high dropout rates, our emergency rooms get treated like family practice by illegals, violent crime has spiked in many areas inundated by illegals, etc....The list goes on and on.

Did you just blame traffic on illegal immigration?

Don't stop him, he's on a roll!

Note to self. Don't ever bother yourself actually putting together an intelligent reply to Michael Fox. And don't forget to have his handle renamed to "michael fox fan".

Dude - you just blamed traffice congestion on illegal immigration. Do you really consider that "an intelligent reply"?

 

[Statorama]

Have there been any measurable stats on the success/failure of this yet? Have they found more illegal aliens than before? Has crime dropped at all? Have there been less kidnappings?

 

[Phurfur]

Have there been any measurable stats on the success/failure of this yet? Have they found more illegal aliens than before? Has crime dropped at all? Have there been less kidnappings?

It doesn't go into effect until the end of july!It will be interesting to see school enrollment numbers next fall.

 

[Card Trader]

Have there been any measurable stats on the success/failure of this yet? Have they found more illegal aliens than before? Has crime dropped at all? Have there been less kidnappings?

It doesn't go into effect until the end of july!It will be interesting to see school enrollment numbers next fall.

Schools have already stated that enrollment is down because families are already leaving. Looks like the bill is working and it hasn't even taken effect

 

[bg0546]

Note to self. Don't ever bother yourself actually putting together an intelligent reply to Michael Fox. And don't forget to have his handle renamed to "michael fox fan".

Dude - you just blamed traffice congestion on illegal immigration. Do you really consider that "an intelligent reply"?

And? Do you have something that shows traffic isn't significantly worse due to illegal immigration? And even if you disagree with that, what about all of the other factors I mentioned? I actually spent some time and thought on the reply you're trying to minimize, and the best response you have is "dude you just blamed traffic congestion on illegal immigration." If that's the best you have in response then yes I'm making a mental note to never respond to you on this issue ever again. You have as much depth on this issue as Tim apparently.

 

[Statorama]

Have there been any measurable stats on the success/failure of this yet? Have they found more illegal aliens than before? Has crime dropped at all? Have there been less kidnappings?

It doesn't go into effect until the end of july!It will be interesting to see school enrollment numbers next fall.

That brings a LOT more focus on the government's dogged tactics to kill this thing before it gets off the ground.It will produce dramatic results, the kind of results that would happen if the government didn't turn a blind eye to illegal immigration in this country.

 

[Christo]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Sure. Why wouldn't I be?

 

[Statorama]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Sure. Why wouldn't I be?

Citizenship isn't something that should be just given away for showing up. Becoming a US Citizen isn't a "participation trophy".That said, I'm for streamlining the process. It doesn't have to be a long process in order to be effective. In fact, if you can have a coherent 10 minute conversation in English you should be 90% done with the process IMO. If the process is streamlined, you could have thousands of immigrants confirmed as citizens each day. Win/win.

 

[oneohh]

Note to self. Don't ever bother yourself actually putting together an intelligent reply to Michael Fox. And don't forget to have his handle renamed to "michael fox fan".

Dude - you just blamed traffice congestion on illegal immigration. Do you really consider that "an intelligent reply"?

And? Do you have something that shows traffic isn't significantly worse due to illegal immigration? And even if you disagree with that, what about all of the other factors I mentioned? I actually spent some time and thought on the reply you're trying to minimize, and the best response you have is "dude you just blamed traffic congestion on illegal immigration." If that's the best you have in response then yes I'm making a mental note to never respond to you on this issue ever again. You have as much depth on this issue as Tim apparently.

If you aren't with them you're against them. It's not a debate, BG. You should just relent and agree with them like the rest of the vacuum legislators on this board.The fact is times have changed. Immigration needs to be regulated. It's not. This is a vote grab by Obama and nothing more. No matter who has done this in the past it's still a vote grab. Open borders to the nearest threat that just happens to share the same soil as us? (And don't act like they are not a threat...you have no idea what allegiances Mexico does or does not have). Brilliant. In this day and age we should be more interested in who is coming into this country than we were while we were trying to establish a labor force. We're there. We've got enough people to do the dirty work. Now it's time to clean up the system. When are you people going to stop giving away what's not yours to begin with?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Explain to me what specifically has changed.....and how it implies that we should massively scale back legal immigration (from where it was, say, 80 years ago)

First of all, I suspect in sheer numbers that it hasn't been scaled back at all. However, back then we didn't have limits IIRC while now we do. As far as what has changed, a heck of a lot. For one thing, and this is obviously recent, but back then we were expanding at a great rate and didn't have unemployment in the 15% plus range in large parts of the country. Second, back then pretty much ALL the people coming here were coming to improve their lives and live the American dream. Timmy will tell you that's still the case but we know that many of those coming here are delivering billions of dollars in drugs. Even worse, the cartels are just setting up shop in our national forests and harvesting drugs there. Don't we have an interest in stopping those things from happening? Also, we know terrorists from the middle east are now heading to S. America, learning to imitate the people from down there, and then coming up as illegals. IOW, we have a vested interest in knowing who each and every immigrant is that comes here. Third, our infrastructure simply has not been able to keep up with the flow of illegals. Los Angeles wouldn't even have a gridlock problem right now if not for illegals. The rest of our infrastructure is similarly struggling to keep up with the influx. Schools in areas of high illegal immigrant populations perform terrible and have extremely high dropout rates, our emergency rooms get treated like family practice by illegals, violent crime has spiked in many areas inundated by illegals, etc....The list goes on and on.

Alright, I'll cease my snarkiness. You're right - it was a thoughtful reply and I was rude to dismiss it.Note that my comments continue to be geared toward legal immigration, as noted above.1. IF your premise is that we should reduce the level of legal immigration we allow now, because of high unemployment, that's certainly worth debating. On the flipside, I'd hope that you are also then comfortable allowing higher immigration when we have low unemployment. I've seen little evidence that the US does this currently - our approach is inflexible and lacks a higher-level strategy in terms of how much legal immigration we allow. 2. Are you suggesting that most people who want to come here LEGALLY today aren't interested in improving their lives? I sincerely doubt that. Are you suggestin that we limit immigration because immigrants - legal immigrants - are running drugs? If your issue is drug-related crimes, then let's address the root cause - our stupid, misguided war on drugs......rather than demonizing immigration. BTW - I agree with you that we have a vested interest in "protecting our borders" so that terrorists don't overwhelm the country. 3. Now we are mixing up the issue of legal vs illegal immigration. AND we're mixing it in with other issues -- like how much economic support (via social services) that we offer to immigrants. Rather than having a debate about whether or not to allow more/less immigration, we SHOULD INSTEAD have a debate about how much economic support we offer immigrants. And per the earlier comment: it does detract from the seriousness of your reply when you suggest that immigrants cause traffic congestion. Apologies again for being an #######. I have no excuse, other than that it comes naturally to me.

 

[videoguy505]

Note to self. Don't ever bother yourself actually putting together an intelligent reply to Michael Fox. And don't forget to have his handle renamed to "michael fox fan".

Dude - you just blamed traffice congestion on illegal immigration. Do you really consider that "an intelligent reply"?

And? Do you have something that shows traffic isn't significantly worse due to illegal immigration? And even if you disagree with that, what about all of the other factors I mentioned? I actually spent some time and thought on the reply you're trying to minimize, and the best response you have is "dude you just blamed traffic congestion on illegal immigration." If that's the best you have in response then yes I'm making a mental note to never respond to you on this issue ever again. You have as much depth on this issue as Tim apparently.

Don't really want to step into this minefield, other than to anecdotally note that in Los Angeles, on the "Immigrant Strike Day" or whatever it was back when there was an organized effort for illegal immigrants to 'go on strike' to show LA how much they rely on their services, I manged to get from like Universal City to LAX in 20 minutes in the middle of the afternoon. 101 to the 405. The freeways were empty.

 

[bg0546]

Alright, I'll cease my snarkiness. You're right - it was a thoughtful reply and I was rude to dismiss it.Apologies again for being an #######. I have no excuse, other than that it comes naturally to me.

You were far BEYOND RUDE. Given this post:

It should be intuitively obvious that our immigration policy is morally bankrupt. I infrequently check out this thread to see if people have gained perspective. But honestly, I have little patience to continue this debate with people who, frankly, lack the ability to have an intelligent debate. The only way to deal with stupidity sometimes is to hit it over the head with a wooden board.

you should have WELCOMED an intelligent, well thought out response with specifics. But you're just like Tim. You simply whine about others posts while lamenting that you aren't getting "intelligent" responses.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Sure. Why wouldn't I be?

Given that we're a nation of immigrants, it seems strange to be in favor of severely restricting legal immigration. Do you think we should be more restrictive today than, say, in the early 1900s? If so, why?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Alright, I'll cease my snarkiness. You're right - it was a thoughtful reply and I was rude to dismiss it.Apologies again for being an #######. I have no excuse, other than that it comes naturally to me.

You were far BEYOND RUDE. Given this post:

It should be intuitively obvious that our immigration policy is morally bankrupt. I infrequently check out this thread to see if people have gained perspective. But honestly, I have little patience to continue this debate with people who, frankly, lack the ability to have an intelligent debate. The only way to deal with stupidity sometimes is to hit it over the head with a wooden board.

you should have WELCOMED an intelligent, well thought out response with specifics. But you're just like Tim. You simply whine about others posts while lamenting that you aren't getting "intelligent" responses.

You're right. I read your post and responded. And I apologized for being an #######. Not sure how else to say it other than "you're right, I was a ####."

 

[bg0546]

Note to self. Don't ever bother yourself actually putting together an intelligent reply to Michael Fox. And don't forget to have his handle renamed to "michael fox fan".

Dude - you just blamed traffice congestion on illegal immigration. Do you really consider that "an intelligent reply"?

And? Do you have something that shows traffic isn't significantly worse due to illegal immigration? And even if you disagree with that, what about all of the other factors I mentioned? I actually spent some time and thought on the reply you're trying to minimize, and the best response you have is "dude you just blamed traffic congestion on illegal immigration." If that's the best you have in response then yes I'm making a mental note to never respond to you on this issue ever again. You have as much depth on this issue as Tim apparently.

Don't really want to step into this minefield, other than to anecdotally not that in Los Angeles, on the "Immigrant Strike Day" or whatever it was back when there was an organized effort for illegal immigrants to 'go on strike' to show LA how much they rely on their services, I manged to get from like Universal City to LAX in 20 minutes in the middle of the afternoon. 101 to the 405. The freeways were empty.

This is what that part of my post was based on. It was not a holiday and I was there at the time. There was no OTHER reason for the freeways to be empty that day. That's why I'm asking if anyone has anything to refute that assertion. Of course they don't. They're like Tim. "The Illegals aren't responsible for our problems." But they have nothing to support that assertion.

 

[Statorama]

You're right. I read your post and responded. And I apologized for being an #######. Not sure how else to say it other than "you're right, I was a ####."

I've been in the same position. Thought your apology was just fine

 

[bg0546]

You're right. I read your post and responded. And I apologized for being an #######. Not sure how else to say it other than "you're right, I was a ####."

That's fine. I accept that you're an ########. Just don't expect me to try to intelligently discuss ANYTHING with you. Why would I after how you conducted yourself in this thread? You should just go back to lurking. Or talk to Christo.

 

[videoguy505]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Sure. Why wouldn't I be?

Given that we're a nation of immigrants, it seems strange to be in favor of severely restricting legal immigration. Do you think we should be more restrictive today than, say, in the early 1900s? If so, why?

Happened to catch something on Discovery about a detective who thought Jack the Ripper came to America in the 1880s, noted that all anyone had to do was land on our shores and make up a name to get in at the time. No paperwork/photos/passports/etc. needed. Don't think that's a system we want to have in place today.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

This is what that part of my post was based on. It was not a holiday and I was there at the time. There was no OTHER reason for the freeways to be empty that day. That's why I'm asking if anyone has anything to refute that assertion. Of course they don't. They're like Tim. "The Illegals aren't responsible for our problems." But they have nothing to support that assertion.

First, you didn't articulate any of this in your post. You just wrote that illegals cause traffic problems.Second, blaming illegals for traffic -- you could just as easily say "if not for rich white people in LA, traffic would be better."Third, if a bunch of "illegals" weren't going to work on a particular day & made a big public issue of it, I'm sure a bunch of other people changed their routines that day too. In other words, there very well could have been "other reasons for the freeways to be empty."

 

[Christo]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Sure. Why wouldn't I be?

Given that we're a nation of immigrants, it seems strange to be in favor of severely restricting legal immigration. Do you think we should be more restrictive today than, say, in the early 1900s? If so, why?

I think we should do as we please. The people who are here owe nothing to people who aren't here just because "we're a nation of immigrants." This has nothing to do with morality.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

The only problem I have with our current policy is that we don't enforce it.

So you're comfortable with the U.S. severely limiting legal immigration?

Sure. Why wouldn't I be?

Given that we're a nation of immigrants, it seems strange to be in favor of severely restricting legal immigration. Do you think we should be more restrictive today than, say, in the early 1900s? If so, why?

Happened to catch something on Discovery about a detective who thought Jack the Ripper came to America in the 1880s, noted that all anyone had to do was land on our shores and make up a name to get in at the time. No paperwork/photos/passports/etc. needed. Don't think that's a system we want to have in place today.

You're confusing the system -- which provides checks and balances --- and the volume of people, which could theoretically be an independent decision.