Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (4 Viewers)

[Michael Fox Fan]

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.

No worries. If you discuss stuff with me, that's fine. If you don't, life will go on. All I can do is apologize and you can decide to either accept that or not accept it.

 

[Phurfur]

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?

Since we have become a nation of entitlements the rules have changed.

 

[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?

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.

Which also muddles two issues (cost per immigrant vs volume of immigrants). We could accept more immigrants into the US at a lower "economic cost" to us - by cutting back services to immigrants. I fail to see how allowing immigrants = "owing people something"....it implies that immigration carries a net negative cost to the people who are "already here." Something that hasn't been conclusively demonstrated.....well, in any study that I've read. And it's also an issue that could be easily addressed by explicitly reducing the level of services we provide.

 

[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?

Since we have become a nation of entitlements the rules have changed.

Then change the rules on entitlements for immigrants.

 

[timschochet]

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.

When exactly have I whined here? I HAVE gotten intelligent responses, and I have argued with them and agreed with others. I thought your response was well thought out, though I believe it's essentially wrong. I have attempted to provide information again and again which demonstrates how illegal immigration is a net positive for this country. If you choose to reject the info, that's completely up to you.

 

[bg0546]

BTW, let's all hope that Fremont Nebraska does the right thing today:

The small town of Fremont, Neb. -- barely 7 miles wide and with a population of 25,000 -- has rarely garnered national attention. But today this Midwestern community could set a national precedent when residents vote on a controversial ordinance designed to ferret out illegal immigrants.

The ordinance aims to zero in on illegal aliens in the workplace and at their temporary homes. Under the ordinance, renters would have to apply for a license, which includes a police check of the applicant's legal status. Undocumented aliens would be turned over to the federal government.

Additionally, businesses would be required to check the legal status of their workers through the federal E-verify database.

While the major employers in the area are meatpacking plants, few are actually located within the Fremont city limits.

The move in Nebraska comes at a time when Washington lawmakers are embroiled in a heated debate over how to proceed with immigration reform. Tensions are high after Arizona enacted a much publicized law that allows police to question people about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion."

What's different about the Nebraska ordinance is that it covers a town that is nowhere near a U.S. border and which has only a small immigrant population, mostly Hispanic. According to the U.S. Census bureau, 93 percent of Fremont's population is white and just 7 percent is Hispanic, although that number has grown steadily in the last decade.

Supporters of the ordinance charge that a growing number of illegal immigrants are taking away jobs from locals and costing the city money. Opponents say Hispanics are being unfairly targeted in a city that doesn't even have an issue with illegal immigrants, and that because many of the meatpacking plants are located outside of Fremont, the new rules won't even impact them.

"What's driving all of this is fear of the unknown. People are not aware of the complexity of the entire immigration system. That's been watered down to an issue of illegal and legal. It's far more complex than that," said Krista Kjeldgaard, a former teacher and now a volunteer at Fremont One Future, which opposes the ordinance.

Supporters argue that there is a need to enforce immigration laws, and if that has to be done at the city level, so be it.

"In principle a community that has a relatively modest immigration problem is precisely the place where this kind of measure is necessary to make sure it doesn't get to the levels other communities are facing," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies. "What this really shows is that the public wants some order in the immigration system."

Nebraska may not be a border state but immigration has become an increasingly contentious topic. State Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont has said he may introduce a bill in the Nebraska legislature that is similar to the Arizona law.

The city of Fremont is bracing for a costly fight if the ordinance passes. Similar measures passed in Farmers Branch, Texas and Hazleton, PA, have been bogged down in costly legal battles for years.

"We don't have any choice. If we are required to fund these efforts to defend the ordinance, we'll do so and try to do so as economically as we can," Dean Skokan, the city's attorney, told ABC News. "It will be a significant budget impact."

The city says it must also factor in costs for police overtime before, during and after the election amid threats of clashes between opposing groups. Based on costs in the other two towns, the city of Fremont estimates paying $3 million, or about $1 million per year, which the city will fund through a combination of tax increases and city job cuts.

The Fremont City Council rejected the immigration proposal in 2008 but the State Supreme Court gave the green light for a vote by the citizens themselves, and supporters raised more than enough signatures to bring the ordinance to the ballot in a special election.

Groups from around the country, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (Maldef) are considering legal challenges to the ordinance if it passes.

As in the case of Arizona, opponents in Nebraska argue that such laws set by the city or state violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, and also violate an individual's due process rights.

The Fremont ordinance sets a "dangerous precedent," said Laurel S. Marsh, executive director of ACLU Nebraska, with the license required by a renter for every move becoming a "handy tracking mechanism."

Attorney Kris Kobach, who helped draft Fremont's ordinance after assisting with similar laws around the country, is confident it will withstand legal challenges. He cited the example of Valley Park, Mo., where a similar ruling was upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which also covers Fremont.

Koback said lack of enforcement on the federal level is driving the trend toward states and cities taking immigration matters into their own hands.

"When the federal government is not adequately enforcing immigration laws, the cost of not enforcement usually falls predominantly to the city and state level," Kobach told ABC News. "Every state is a border state now to some degree. Different states experience illegal immigration in different ways."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration...2180&page=2

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BTW, let's all hope that Fremont Nebraska does the right thing today:

The small town of Fremont, Neb. -- barely 7 miles wide and with a population of 25,000 -- has rarely garnered national attention. But today this Midwestern community could set a national precedent when residents vote on a controversial ordinance designed to ferret out illegal immigrants.

The ordinance aims to zero in on illegal aliens in the workplace and at their temporary homes. Under the ordinance, renters would have to apply for a license, which includes a police check of the applicant's legal status. Undocumented aliens would be turned over to the federal government.

Additionally, businesses would be required to check the legal status of their workers through the federal E-verify database.

:

:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration...2180&page=2

Traditional conservative position: Registering guns -> slippery slope to a police state.

Today's conservative position: Registering renters -> necessary to fight a non existent problem.

 

[Christo]

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.

Which also muddles two issues (cost per immigrant vs volume of immigrants). We could accept more immigrants into the US at a lower "economic cost" to us - by cutting back services to immigrants. I fail to see how allowing immigrants = "owing people something"....it implies that immigration carries a net negative cost to the people who are "already here." Something that hasn't been conclusively demonstrated.....well, in any study that I've read. And it's also an issue that could be easily addressed by explicitly reducing the level of services we provide.

What are you talking about? You said it was a moral issue.

 

[timschochet]

BTW, let's all hope that Fremont Nebraska does the right thing today:

The small town of Fremont, Neb. -- barely 7 miles wide and with a population of 25,000 -- has rarely garnered national attention. But today this Midwestern community could set a national precedent when residents vote on a controversial ordinance designed to ferret out illegal immigrants.

The ordinance aims to zero in on illegal aliens in the workplace and at their temporary homes. Under the ordinance, renters would have to apply for a license, which includes a police check of the applicant's legal status. Undocumented aliens would be turned over to the federal government.

Additionally, businesses would be required to check the legal status of their workers through the federal E-verify database.

:

:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration...2180&page=2

Traditional conservative position: Registering guns -> slippery slope to a police state.

Today's conservative position: Registering renters -> necessary to fight a non existent problem.

Amazing inconsistency, isn't it?

 

[Phurfur]

BTW, let's all hope that Fremont Nebraska does the right thing today:

The small town of Fremont, Neb. -- barely 7 miles wide and with a population of 25,000 -- has rarely garnered national attention. But today this Midwestern community could set a national precedent when residents vote on a controversial ordinance designed to ferret out illegal immigrants.

The ordinance aims to zero in on illegal aliens in the workplace and at their temporary homes. Under the ordinance, renters would have to apply for a license, which includes a police check of the applicant's legal status. Undocumented aliens would be turned over to the federal government.

Additionally, businesses would be required to check the legal status of their workers through the federal E-verify database.

:

:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration...2180&page=2

Traditional conservative position: Registering guns -> slippery slope to a police state.

Today's conservative position: Registering renters -> necessary to fight a non existent problem.

Bigot!

 

[RCon]

BTW, let's all hope that Fremont Nebraska does the right thing today:

The small town of Fremont, Neb. -- barely 7 miles wide and with a population of 25,000 -- has rarely garnered national attention. But today this Midwestern community could set a national precedent when residents vote on a controversial ordinance designed to ferret out illegal immigrants.

The ordinance aims to zero in on illegal aliens in the workplace and at their temporary homes. Under the ordinance, renters would have to apply for a license, which includes a police check of the applicant's legal status. Undocumented aliens would be turned over to the federal government.

Additionally, businesses would be required to check the legal status of their workers through the federal E-verify database.

:

:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration...2180&page=2 :(

Traditional conservative position: Registering guns -> slippery slope to a police state.

Today's conservative position: Registering renters -> necessary to fight a non existent problem.

Amazing inconsistency, isn't it?

It's only inconsistent if you think illegal immigration isn't a problem. Clearly, anyone in favor of registering renters in order to solve an ongoing problem thinks it is, in fact, a problem.

 

[timschochet]

It's only inconsistent if you think illegal immigration isn't a problem. Clearly, anyone in favor of registering renters in order to solve an ongoing problem thinks it is, in fact, a problem.

No, it's inconsistent no matter what your position is. For example, I think violent crime is a problem. It is simply a fact that if people weren't allowed to own guns in this country, we would have much less violent crime (if you don't believe this, just look at violent crime statistics in nations where gun ownership is illegal.) However, I am opposed to removing peoples' guns, because that is a violation of individual liberty. If I were willing to sacrifice individual liberty in order to reduce violent crime, I would be a hypocrite. If you believe in the right to own guns, you should also believe that businesses should be able to hire who they like without having to prove anything to the government. The principle in both issues is the same: liberty.

 

[Christo]

It's only inconsistent if you think illegal immigration isn't a problem. Clearly, anyone in favor of registering renters in order to solve an ongoing problem thinks it is, in fact, a problem.

No, it's inconsistent no matter what your position is. For example, I think violent crime is a problem. It is simply a fact that if people weren't allowed to own guns in this country, we would have much less violent crime (if you don't believe this, just look at violent crime statistics in nations where gun ownership is illegal.) However, I am opposed to removing peoples' guns, because that is a violation of individual liberty. If I were willing to sacrifice individual liberty in order to reduce violent crime, I would be a hypocrite. If you believe in the right to own guns, you should also believe that businesses should be able to hire who they like without having to prove anything to the government. The principle in both issues is the same: liberty.

This post actually hurt my brain.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

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.

Which also muddles two issues (cost per immigrant vs volume of immigrants). We could accept more immigrants into the US at a lower "economic cost" to us - by cutting back services to immigrants. I fail to see how allowing immigrants = "owing people something"....it implies that immigration carries a net negative cost to the people who are "already here." Something that hasn't been conclusively demonstrated.....well, in any study that I've read. And it's also an issue that could be easily addressed by explicitly reducing the level of services we provide.

What are you talking about? You said it was a moral issue.

Folks who are opposed to immigration always fall back on the cost argument, so I'm pre-empting what is an illogical supporting point.I still think it's a moral issue, but it's obvious you won't be convinced on that, so it isn't worth debating that.

 

[Soonerman]

BTW, let's all hope that Fremont Nebraska does the right thing today:

The small town of Fremont, Neb. -- barely 7 miles wide and with a population of 25,000 -- has rarely garnered national attention. But today this Midwestern community could set a national precedent when residents vote on a controversial ordinance designed to ferret out illegal immigrants.

The ordinance aims to zero in on illegal aliens in the workplace and at their temporary homes. Under the ordinance, renters would have to apply for a license, which includes a police check of the applicant's legal status. Undocumented aliens would be turned over to the federal government.

Additionally, businesses would be required to check the legal status of their workers through the federal E-verify database.

:

:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration...2180&page=2

Traditional conservative position: Registering guns -> slippery slope to a police state.

Today's conservative position: Registering renters -> necessary to fight a non existent problem.

Amazing inconsistency, isn't it?

Not at all. An armed citizenry is useful for preventing tyranny.A bunch of illegal aliens? Not so much.

 

[Christo]

What are you talking about? You said it was a moral issue.

Folks who are opposed to immigration always fall back on the cost argument, so I'm pre-empting what is an illogical supporting point.

I'm not folks. I did not fall back on any argument. And I'm not opposed to immigration.

I still think it's a moral issue, but it's obvious you won't be convinced on that, so it isn't worth debating that.

You haven't even made an argument yet. You just made the statement. It appears as if you don't really believe your reasoning is good enough to sway me.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BTW, let's all hope that Fremont Nebraska does the right thing today:

The small town of Fremont, Neb. -- barely 7 miles wide and with a population of 25,000 -- has rarely garnered national attention. But today this Midwestern community could set a national precedent when residents vote on a controversial ordinance designed to ferret out illegal immigrants.

The ordinance aims to zero in on illegal aliens in the workplace and at their temporary homes. Under the ordinance, renters would have to apply for a license, which includes a police check of the applicant's legal status. Undocumented aliens would be turned over to the federal government.

Additionally, businesses would be required to check the legal status of their workers through the federal E-verify database.

:

:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration...2180&page=2

Traditional conservative position: Registering guns -> slippery slope to a police state.

Today's conservative position: Registering renters -> necessary to fight a non existent problem.

Amazing inconsistency, isn't it?

Not at all. An armed citizenry is useful for preventing tyranny.A bunch of illegal aliens? Not so much.

What does this have to do with my comparison? What legitimate city interest is being served to require a license to rent?

 

[Soonerman]

What does this have to do with my comparison? What legitimate city interest is being served to require a license to rent?

I wasn't responding to your post. I was responding to the post that labelled it an "amazing inconsistency".

 

[Arch Stanton]

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.

Dude, you're blaming traffic congestion in LA on illegal immigration!!! That's the most asinine thing I've read in a long time. And now you Infignantly demand proof that it isn't?! What a joke. Since you brought it up first, why don't you produce anything whatsoever that's even related to illegal mexicans and traffic jams. Doesn't even have to blame them, just link them in any way.

 

[SofaKings]

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.

Dude, you're blaming traffic congestion in LA on illegal immigration!!! That's the most asinine thing I've read in a long time. And now you Infignantly demand proof that it isn't?! What a joke. Since you brought it up first, why don't you produce anything whatsoever that's even related to illegal mexicans and traffic jams. Doesn't even have to blame them, just link them in any way.

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.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's only inconsistent if you think illegal immigration isn't a problem. Clearly, anyone in favor of registering renters in order to solve an ongoing problem thinks it is, in fact, a problem.

I'd rather know that there is a problem, or at least the evidence is pretty overwhelming that there is a problem before favoring anything as ideologically inappropriate as mandating the licensing of renters. There is evidence, but whether illegal immigrants are a net positive or a net drain is hardly overwhelmingly conclusive either way at this point. At least the conflicting evidence made available to me to date.(Note: If property owners wanted to mandate that they would only rent to licensed renters and the government facilitated this process, that would be different.)

 

[RCon]

It's only inconsistent if you think illegal immigration isn't a problem. Clearly, anyone in favor of registering renters in order to solve an ongoing problem thinks it is, in fact, a problem.

No, it's inconsistent no matter what your position is. For example, I think violent crime is a problem. It is simply a fact that if people weren't allowed to own guns in this country, we would have much less violent crime (if you don't believe this, just look at violent crime statistics in nations where gun ownership is illegal.) However, I am opposed to removing peoples' guns, because that is a violation of individual liberty. If I were willing to sacrifice individual liberty in order to reduce violent crime, I would be a hypocrite. If you believe in the right to own guns, you should also believe that businesses should be able to hire who they like without having to prove anything to the government. The principle in both issues is the same: liberty.

This post is just wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.First off, it's patently untrue that violent crime would be reduced if we banned guns. For evidence, Chicago and DC both have (or had) extremely tough gun laws and it hasn't helped reduce crime one bit.Second, you'd only be a hypocrite if you believed the liberty in question (the right to own guns) was more important than the result (reduction in violent crime by X amount). I imagine that you don't believe individuals should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, but that belief doesn't make you a hypocrite, does it?Third, businesses will always have some things they can't legally do. For example, my business might want to dump toxic waste in the river, or pay its workers $1 per hour, yet we have laws against those things. Simply wanting to draw the line in a different place than you do doesn't make someone a hypocrite.

 

[RCon]

It's only inconsistent if you think illegal immigration isn't a problem. Clearly, anyone in favor of registering renters in order to solve an ongoing problem thinks it is, in fact, a problem.

I'd rather know that there is a problem, or at least the evidence is pretty overwhelming that there is a problem before favoring anything as ideologically inappropriate as mandating the licensing of renters. There is evidence, but whether illegal immigrants are a net positive or a net drain is hardly overwhelmingly conclusive either way at this point. At least the conflicting evidence made available to me to date.(Note: If property owners wanted to mandate that they would only rent to licensed renters and the government facilitated this process, that would be different.)

All well and good, but my point was that it's not inconsistent thought, for those who are convinced that there is a problem.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

What are you talking about? You said it was a moral issue.

Folks who are opposed to immigration always fall back on the cost argument, so I'm pre-empting what is an illogical supporting point.

I'm not folks. I did not fall back on any argument. And I'm not opposed to immigration.

Ok.

I still think it's a moral issue, but it's obvious you won't be convinced on that, so it isn't worth debating that.

You haven't even made an argument yet. You just made the statement. It appears as if you don't really believe your reasoning is good enough to sway me.

I'm sure that's exactly what you take from the comment.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

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.

For reasons mentioned earlier, I'm guessing many people don't find this anecdotal evidence compelling. Additionally, you could just as easily say "if rich white people were kicked out of LA, traffic would improve."

 

[Christo]

I still think it's a moral issue, but it's obvious you won't be convinced on that, so it isn't worth debating that.

You haven't even made an argument yet. You just made the statement. It appears as if you don't really believe your reasoning is good enough to sway me.

I'm sure that's exactly what you take from the comment.

I wouldn't have said it otherwise.

 

[Arch Stanton]

lly 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.

Dude, you're blaming traffic congestion in LA on illegal immigration!!! That's the most asinine thing I've read in a long time. And now you Infignantly demand proof that it isn't?! What a joke. Since you brought it up first, why don't you produce anything whatsoever that's even related to illegal mexicans and traffic jams. Doesn't even have to blame them, just link them in any way.

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.

I guess technically that does fit the "anything" requirements (though not the linking it to traffic jams req) but I was really thinking more along the lines of some sort of at least semi-credible/objective news type study or report or non-opinion link, not an FBG anecdotal post. I made it from Silverlake to Venice in 25 minutes today during non-peak hours as well and had mroe freeway intersections to deal with. Mid-day is not generally congested like peak rush hours. Additionally, more than just illegals were striking that day so it's not even directly related to the topic. I'm afraid your comment still ranks very high on the asininity scale.

 

[The Commish]

Anyhow, I am betting that Christo and others are wrong and that this terrible law WILL be found to be unconstitutional. I certainly hope so. We'll have to see how it turns out. If I am wrong and the law is allowed to be enforced, then we'll have to find other means to battle for freedom, such as isolating Arizona. I hope that among those reading this, there are a FEW of you that agree with me. If so, I hope you'll choose to contribute to the ACLU or the other groups fighting this. Especially at times like these when common sense seems to be a minority opinion, those of us on the side of liberty need to stand up and be counted.

Sorry....you can't use the "common sense" shtick here...."common sense" would dictate that if you want to be here legally, you go through the proper channels. It might be different if there weren't appropriate channels to do things the right way.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I actually don't see much of a problem with the Nebraska law on its face. Although I reserve the right to condemn it upon further review.

This country is certainly a nation of immigrants. I'm of Italian descent and my relatives came over in the early 1900s-1930s. Legally. (as far as I know).

We certainly need immigration reform. Actual rules that are in place and enforced.

Much of the problem is a supply and demand thing. We supply the jobs. The illegals have a demand for work. We need people to do low-paying jobs. There is a virtual never ending supply of poor people willing to do such work in Mexico. If employers were taken to task on their illegal hiring practices, then some of this problem is taken care of.

There needs to be border security. That doesnt mean militia men patrolling the border and it doesnt mean border patrol can just shoot to kill.

The Arizona law is an infringement on the basic right to be free of unreasonable search. US citizens rights are being violated by this law. It is not the place of the state to determine who can be a US citizen or not, so the "anchor baby" portion really has no place at all.

It is not, however, the fault of many of the current illegals that immigration policy was often ignored and/or not enforced by our government over the past 20+ years. So there needs to be an accelerated path to citizenship, in my opinion,

What is the legal path to citizenship anyway? How can this be improved upon??

We need to:

1. enforce current laws and protect the border (for more reasons than just immigration).

2. try to eliminate the supply of illegal jobs with stricter penalties and enforcement of such laws/penalties against US employers hiring illegals and further regulate industries notorious for making such hires. Wage and hour laws need to be enforced.

3. at the same time, provide expanded work visas for those who want to come to this country to work such jobs. Provides screening, identification, status, and a path to citizenship.

4. cooperate with Mexico to combat drug cartels militarily and regarding a change in drug policy. Another supply/demand thing. legalize marijuana. more "demand side" reform for cocaine/heroin etc. possession versus just jailing and punishing addicts. Stricter penalties for drug traffickers.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

It's only inconsistent if you think illegal immigration isn't a problem. Clearly, anyone in favor of registering renters in order to solve an ongoing problem thinks it is, in fact, a problem.

No, it's inconsistent no matter what your position is. For example, I think violent crime is a problem. It is simply a fact that if people weren't allowed to own guns in this country, we would have much less violent crime (if you don't believe this, just look at violent crime statistics in nations where gun ownership is illegal.) However, I am opposed to removing peoples' guns, because that is a violation of individual liberty. If I were willing to sacrifice individual liberty in order to reduce violent crime, I would be a hypocrite. If you believe in the right to own guns, you should also believe that businesses should be able to hire who they like without having to prove anything to the government. The principle in both issues is the same: liberty.

This is not one of your better posts.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Anyhow, I am betting that Christo and others are wrong and that this terrible law WILL be found to be unconstitutional. I certainly hope so. We'll have to see how it turns out. If I am wrong and the law is allowed to be enforced, then we'll have to find other means to battle for freedom, such as isolating Arizona. I hope that among those reading this, there are a FEW of you that agree with me. If so, I hope you'll choose to contribute to the ACLU or the other groups fighting this. Especially at times like these when common sense seems to be a minority opinion, those of us on the side of liberty need to stand up and be counted.

Sorry....you can't use the "common sense" shtick here...."common sense" would dictate that if you want to be here legally, you go through the proper channels. It might be different if there weren't appropriate channels to do things the right way.

There aren't appropriate channels for many, probably most of those here illegally.

 

[Thorn]

It's only inconsistent if you think illegal immigration isn't a problem. Clearly, anyone in favor of registering renters in order to solve an ongoing problem thinks it is, in fact, a problem.

No, it's inconsistent no matter what your position is. For example, I think violent crime is a problem. It is simply a fact that if people weren't allowed to own guns in this country, we would have much less violent crime (if you don't believe this, just look at violent crime statistics in nations where gun ownership is illegal.) However, I am opposed to removing peoples' guns, because that is a violation of individual liberty. If I were willing to sacrifice individual liberty in order to reduce violent crime, I would be a hypocrite. If you believe in the right to own guns, you should also believe that businesses should be able to hire who they like without having to prove anything to the government. The principle in both issues is the same: liberty.

This is not one of your better posts.

It's good comedy, if nothing else.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It is simply a fact that if people weren't allowed to own guns in this country, we would have much less violent crime (if you don't believe this, just look at violent crime statistics in nations where gun ownership is illegal.)

That's not simply a fact. It's disputed by some rather rigorous statistical analysis.You can't just compare the violent crime rate in the U.S. to the violent crime rates in countries that don't fight the War on Drugs like we do and call it a day. You have to control for the War on Drugs; and once you do that, there's no clear relationship between gun prohibition and violence. What relationship there is may be inverse -- the more guns, the less crime. It's a debatable (and hotly debated) point, not "simply a fact."

If I were willing to sacrifice individual liberty in order to reduce violent crime, I would be a hypocrite.

Maybe the context is lost on me, but I have no idea what you're getting at here. Everybody I've ever met is willing to sacrifice individual liberty in some cases in order to reduce violent crime. I don't think that makes everybody a hypocrite.

 

[oneohh]

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?

Since we have become a nation of entitlements the rules have changed.

Very

 

[thatguythere]

What?

 

[thatguythere]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

 

[Card Trader]

What?

That's classic.

EDIT: And a very very sad indication that many of the vocal minority are completely clueless.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

What?

wow just wow

 

[Christo]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

It's funny. But there are idiots on both sides.

 

[thatguythere]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

It's funny. But there are idiots on both sides.

I don't care what side she's on....she's obviously not qualified to be speaking on the issue.

 

[Statorama]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

YouTube is blocked at work. Cliffs?

 

[oneohh]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

It's funny. But there are idiots on both sides.

I don't care what side she's on....she's obviously not qualified to be speaking on the issue.

Woah, woah, woah...since when did qualifications matter in politics?

 

[Card Trader]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

YouTube is blocked at work. Cliffs?

The County Supervisor of Milwaukee who is trying to boycott Arizona says that she'd maybe understand why Arizona would pass a bill like this if they actually bordered Mexico, like Texas does.

 

[Statorama]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

YouTube is blocked at work. Cliffs?

The County Supervisor of Milwaukee who is trying to boycott Arizona says that she'd maybe understand why Arizona would pass a bill like this if they actually bordered Mexico, like Texas does.

:facepalm:

 

[videoguy505]

This thread is so much better with Timsnotchet on vacation.

 

[Statorama]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

YouTube is blocked at work. Cliffs?

The County Supervisor of Milwaukee who is trying to boycott Arizona says that she'd maybe understand why Arizona would pass a bill like this if they actually bordered Mexico, like Texas does.

Had a chance to think about this. If liberals think this way, then their arguments about the law make much more sense. Once they are educated that it does indeed border Mexico, they'll understand the purpose.My bad, I just thought everyone knew that.

 

[Card Trader]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

YouTube is blocked at work. Cliffs?

The County Supervisor of Milwaukee who is trying to boycott Arizona says that she'd maybe understand why Arizona would pass a bill like this if they actually bordered Mexico, like Texas does.

Had a chance to think about this. If liberals think this way, then their arguments about the law make much more sense. Once they are educated that it does indeed border Mexico, they'll understand the purpose.My bad, I just thought everyone knew that.

When Tim gets back we can let him know.

 

[oneohh]

Had a chance to think about this. If liberals think this way, then their arguments about the law make much more sense. Once they are educated that it does indeed border Mexico, they'll understand the purpose.My bad, I just thought everyone knew that.

When Tim gets back we can let him know.

 

[Christo]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

It's funny. But there are idiots on both sides.

I don't care what side she's on....she's obviously not qualified to be speaking on the issue.

Okay

 

[Statcruncher]

This help?