Quote :

"The Arizona law parallels federal law and it should be fully implemented and it should be the law in every state of the union."

The Arizona law is, at best, arguably in line with federal law. Federal law, meanwhile, is in dire need of radical readjustment in favor of better facilitated immigration.

Unless you're full-blooded Cherokee or something, you should agree.

7/29/2010 2:29:16 AM

To m52ncsu: Some here are trying to have a civilized discussion--and you can't seem to help but be pissy. Please butt out.

As to your call for "line numbers," where are yours? Furthermore, concerning your critique of my posting style, please direct us to all of your quality TSB threads. I think we'll be waiting quite a while on that one.

Now, concerning United States vs. Arizona and fossil's position. . .

1.

Quote :

"well the opinion first explains how the constitution sets out the theory of federal preemption (i.e. federal law has priority over certain issues -- such as immigration -- both legal and illegal (think sep. of powers)). So, unless you disagree with the constitution, federal preemption theory must be accepted."

. . .that I will hence summarize as the notion of preemption. There simply is no preemption involved.

As I have indicated here, the Arizona law (Senate Bill 1070) parallels federal law--it does not preempt it. The law simply determines what to do with criminal illegal aliens--in accordance with the existing federal law--once they have been apprehended/detained.

Precedent: Gonzales vs. City of Peoria (1983).

Quote :

"The general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes."

Quote :

"Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent [emphasis added] enforcement activity is authorized."

Quote :

"Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens."

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/722/722.F2d.468.82-5432.html

And as I posed the question here, I suppose state agencies should just stop requiring that individuals produce I-9 forms, work Visas, and so on and also the identification required to verify these federal documents?

2. Concerning the "failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers" (Section 3 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 13-1509 [line 14]), which relates to producing some acceptable form of identification when required by a law enforcement officer, this is already federal law:

Title 8, Section 1304

Quote :

"(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section [emphasis added]. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001304----000-.html

Suspects are required to produce some form of ID. What in the world could possibly be wrong with asking those suspected of being in the country illegally to produce what they (if legal/documented aliens) are required by law to carry at all times?

3.

Quote :

"The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States' favor considering the public interest."

--U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34998325/U-S-v-Arizona-Order-on-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction

How could any rational person possibly think that the United States would "suffer irreparable harm" by a state simply notifying the federal government when one of its laws have been broken? And don't give me any of that "federal resources" baloney! If that's the only problem, then more resources need to be found and dedicated to stopping illegal immigration--not to mention the drain on Arizona's own resources and those of other states.

Quote :

"Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others."

--Barack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8ZUXkECuaA

This, of course, is code for "Why haven't you passed comprehensive immigration reform?" Nevertheless, Obama has admitted on many occasions that the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities concerning illegal immigration--what would you have Arizona and other states do?

In any event, it appears the ruling at issue allows that Arizona law enforcement officers may enforce provisions of the Arizona law at their discretion, rather than being required to enforce them. I'm thankful for this, at least.

^ Yes, federal law needs reform--but it needs enforcement more than anything! And if federal authorities can't or won't do it, then I firmly believe that states have all the constitutional authority necessary to proceed where the federal government has failed.

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 4:08 AM. Reason : PS: Some might consider "parallels" and "in line with" somewhat synonymous.]

7/29/2010 3:41:22 AM

With this judge's ruling, president Obama and his party is going to reap a whirlwind of voter anger.

The message he is sending is that the feds aren't going to enforce immigration law, AND now..the fed will prevent any state from enforcing those laws as well. His party is holding the issue hostage until we cry uncle and allow amnesty.

The mixed message is aggravating. One one hand he wants to allow illegals to stay in the US and seek employment, while on the other..he wants to prosecute employers to the max for hiring them.

Obama is asking for real trouble if his solution is to grant amnesty AND refuse to forcefully secure the border.

7/29/2010 9:52:07 AM

another question is why are the Feds selectively coming after Arizona for their enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws, when there are several states/cities at the other end of spectrum. the so called "sanctuary" cities, openly flaunting and disregarding the letter of Federal Law. is there not hypocrisy here?

either enforce Federal Law, or take it off the books.

7/29/2010 9:54:15 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/28/arizona.immigration.economy/index.html?hpt=T2

unintended consequences...

7/29/2010 11:01:15 AM

I support the use of National Guard troops to round up and transport en masse all aliens from the country by force. I call this plan the Bus Route of Tears, only this time, we NATIVE americans are doing the ousting! The economy will slowly recover, with our trash population filling manual labor jobs. Sure they don't work as hard, but we can just lower the minimum wage to compensate.

7/29/2010 1:47:20 PM

From that article...

Quote :

"But for the Tellez family business and others like it, the damage from the controversy already is done. Reduced spending in restaurants, grocery and retail stores has triggered a domino effect among businesses in the metro Phoenix business community and throughout Arizona. To stay afloat even as their clients disappear or reduce inventory orders, the business has reduced employees' hours and cut back operations in the industrial warehouse, home to several large freezers and forklifts and an office sparsely decorated with posters of illustrated fish and cuts of meat."

Bravo, Arizona -- let's terrify a huge chunk of your tax base so they don't spend any more money, thereby causing businesses to cut employee hours or even close down. Also, make sure to do this in a recession.

I wonder how many employees who have had their hours cut or their jobs lost as a result of a decline in immigrant business still support this measure?

7/29/2010 1:50:34 PM

Yeah but at least they don't have to listen to all that mexican language jibber jabber. You're in america, speak american!

7/29/2010 1:52:43 PM

Quote :

"I wonder how many employees who have had their hours cut or their jobs lost as a result of a decline in immigrant business still support this measure? "

Probably less than the people who still support Obamacare. And to your arguement, I guess if we could all rob banks then we would have more money to spend at local businesses too.

7/29/2010 1:54:53 PM

Any economic benefit mexican labor provides is offset by their drain on tax dollars by us having to pay cops to arrest them.

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 1:57 PM. Reason : and to teach their jibberjabber children to speak american]

7/29/2010 1:57:03 PM

What in the sweet blue fuck does Obamacare have to do with anything? Jesus Christ, you people have a one-track mind.

And the "robbing banks" bit is the stupidest goddamn thing I've heard all week. I can only assume that you're trying to draw an analogy between "armed robbery" and "walking into the country without paperwork and finding a job."

Theft is not productive; employment is.

It flabbergasts me that at a time like this you're willing to stomp on the economy because you're butthurt about the documentation of brown people.

7/29/2010 2:07:08 PM

but... but .....but..... you're supposed to be a Republican....what has become of you, man? Look at yourself.

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 2:11 PM. Reason : You're older now, you're supposed to be MORE republican.]

7/29/2010 2:11:27 PM

To DaBird: At least that's not the case in Arizona. The court declined to enjoin "Portions of Section 2 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 11-1051(A): prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws [page 4, line 1]." Thankfully, "sanctuary cities" remain illegal in Arizona.

Now on to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court. I am confident that SB 1070 will be upheld on appeal.

In the meantime, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has cracked down with another crime suppression operation in Phoenix. He doesn't need SB 1070 to turn illegal immigrants over to ICE.

To GrumpyGOP: They'll simply flee to the sanctuary state of California and drain their already near-bankrupt resources. Eventually, they, too, will cry "Enough!"

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ^^ Yeah, make it all about race, Grumpy. Typical. ]

7/29/2010 2:14:33 PM

Quote :

"you're supposed to be a Republican....what has become of you, man? "

Republicans are supposed to believe in the free market, and freedom in general. Labor is part of the market, even though many on my side seem to have forgotten it or chosen to ignore it out of fear.

Quote :

"They'll simply flee to the sanctuary state of California and drain their already near-bankrupt resources."

As we've been over before, time and time again, undocumented immigrants are net contributors to state coffers because they don't draw on many of the more expensive services but they do, by and large, pay taxes. Furthermore, as Arizona is about to find out, they buy things from California businesses, giving them money with which to pay more taxes still, as well as to hire or retain employees, who pay even more taxes.

California should be far, far more interested in fixing the fucked up state government that got it where it is now than it should be about brown people.

---

That whole long post and you pull out one reference to "brown" people at the end, and now I'm making it all about race?

It's inane to deny that there's at least some racial element here, because my pasty ass could drive around Arizona for a month and nobody would ask to see my papers.

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 2:23 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2010 2:22:01 PM

^^Now there's a model white male moving healthily into conservative adulthood. The wisdom is dripping from his post.

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

7/29/2010 2:22:59 PM

^^ I just wanted to be clear about the core of your argument. I mean, you're a better person than the rest of us--smarter, even--because you care so much about "brown people."

Why don't you post it again? It'll feel good.

And the rest of us are racist rubes who just "don't get it," right? Even though, in reality, we simply want the borders (plural--and the ports) secured and we don't care one bit about the origins of the illegal individuals that we keep out or deport.

So much for the liberal cry about the. . .

Quote :

"RULE OF LAW"

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 2:41 PM. Reason : Right?]

7/29/2010 2:40:13 PM

I love you.

7/29/2010 2:45:22 PM

^ Please stop posting.

7/29/2010 2:45:56 PM

Quote :

"liberal cry... "RULE OF LAW""

are you actually quoting someone?

7/29/2010 2:50:50 PM

^ Sort of. Do you have anything on the topic?

7/29/2010 2:53:24 PM

Quote :

"Republicans are supposed to believe in the free market, and freedom in general. Labor is part of the market, even though many on my side seem to have forgotten it or chosen to ignore it out of fear. "

Its damn hard to argue for a free market of labor when you have min wage laws, employment taxes, health care mandates, etc... plus a welfare state. Or are you honestly suggesting that every illegal immigrant is in this country working? And are you suggesting doing away with the above laws to open up the labor market?

The market is begging for cheaper labor while our govt is forcing labor to be more costly.

7/29/2010 3:02:43 PM

Quote :

"I just wanted to be clear about the core of your argument."

The core of my argument is that this country is supposed to be based on certain principles that our current immigration policy violates. Furthermore, we did quite well with the lax to nonexistent policies we've had in the past.

The fact that the current batch is brown is immaterial. If we were talking in 1890 I'd have said "butthurt about the documentation of dagos and micks." Although not really, because back then nobody cared about the documentation, but you get the idea.

Quote :

"And the rest of us are racist rubes who just "don't get it," right?"

You're not. Those people do exist on this board, and can be identified by their loud complaints that phone menus and ATM's have a "Press 2 for Spanish" option.

I'm on the fence about eyedrb, who may or may not be racist but who certainly "doesn't get it."

Quote :

"Even though, in reality, we simply want the borders (plural--and the ports) secured and we don't care one bit about the origins of the illegal individuals that we keep out or deport. "

We want the same thing as far as secure borders go. We should keep careful track of who and what enters the country, and we should have the ability to keep out individuals who pose a threat (because of ties to crime or terrorism, for example). But telling people, "No, you can't come in because we've reached our quota of Mexicans" doesn't make us more secure. Neither does deporting otherwise law-abiding people from this country.

7/29/2010 3:03:14 PM

Quote :

"Its damn hard to argue for a free market of labor when you have min wage laws, employment taxes, health care mandates, etc... plus a welfare state. Or are you honestly suggesting that every illegal immigrant is in this country working? And are you suggesting doing away with the above laws to open up the labor market? "

Like I said, one track mind.

First of all, what I said was "Republicans are supposed to believe in the free market." I didn't say we had an otherwise perfectly free market. I did not claim that employment among immigrants (or anybody else) was 100%, but I'd be willing to bet that it's relatively high -- when the undocumented workers can't find work, they go back home. We saw this effect when the recession kicked in. The red herring policies you list are items I'd be more than happy to discuss in a relevant thread.

Here's my question: Do you want a free labor market? Because if you do, you should be in favor of unrestricted immigration just like you are opposed to minimum wage, etc. But I'm willing to bet you're in favor of a free labor market but are opposed to unrestricted immigration.

7/29/2010 3:08:50 PM

^^

Quote :

"The fact that the current batch is brown is immaterial."

Fair enough. Then let's not bring it up.

Quote :

"You're not [a racist]."

Thank you, Grumpy. And if you knew me, you'd have confirmation of this.

To be clear on my position, I'm not a round 'em all up guy (though, as a matter of general principle, those who are here illegally shouldn't be here). I fully understand that there are circumstances (such as a child being illegally brought to the United States by his or her undocumented parents, for example) that need special consideration.

I don't think we have any choice but to document many of those currently in the country illegally in some way. They can have a path to citizenship, but there must be consequences for breaking our country's laws.

None of this is possible, however, unless we first secure our borders (for a number of reasons)! Despite Obama's declarations to the contrary, he has shown me absolutely nothing that indicates he is inclined to do so. This is unforgivable!

And states simply must have some authority to secure their interiors against those who do not belong there and who are not of goodwill. I can see no good reason that states can't check the immigration status of those detained in relation to another suspected crime and hold them until they can be turned over to federal officials. For the life of me, I honestly can't see the problem with this--except for the problem of those who would demagogue the issue.

^ A free market is not a free-for-all market, Grumpy. Those who come here illegally aren't playing by the established rules.

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

7/29/2010 3:20:06 PM

Quote :

"Here's my question: Do you want a free labor market? Because if you do, you should be in favor of unrestricted immigration just like you are opposed to minimum wage, etc. But I'm willing to bet you're in favor of a free labor market but are opposed to unrestricted immigration. "

If you eliminated the welfare state, then yes I would support a free labor market. But you cant argue for one while the other exists. The fact that our non workers have much better lifestyles than many countries working class is a reason for some to come here to better themselves without wanting to contribute.

You must admit that illegal immigration is a mix of different motivations. You cant simply say they come for our free health care or just for jobs. There are millions and each with their own reason for coming. I would say some certainly are coming in to fill the gap of cheap labor. We have legal paths to fullfil this, but it certainly seems that they arent adequate. But there are some who want to enter this country for our entitlements/benefits which are much better than in their own country. Can you blame them? no. But when money is tight you have to make tough decisions on what you can afford, and entitlements alone are going to bankrupt us. And those will be the most difficult to cut.

btw, I have said several times that my possibly illegal patients or migrant workers are among my best. They are very respectful, fully compliant with meds, and really a pleasure. Much better than some of the career caids we see. (if they show)

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

7/29/2010 4:01:48 PM

Quote :

"None of this is possible, however, unless we first secure our borders (for a number of reasons)! Despite Obama's declarations to the contrary, he has shown me absolutely nothing that indicates he is inclined to do so. This is unforgivable!"

Let me just go ahead and ask a reasonable question...
When you say "secure our borders", are you referring to the literal policing of the physical border between Mexico and the US?

You do realize that until recently, the majority of illegal immigrants entered this country via legal means, yes? Even now, the number of new illegal immigrants entering the country via legal means is _just_ under 50%.

So you could create an impenatrable wall 100 ft high and 100 ft under the ground and cavity search every vehicle entering the country and your illegal immigration would still be approximately 50%. Not to mention that cutting off one means of entry would simply shift more ppl to the legal route and you are once again back at square one.

"Securing the border" has very little to do with this arguement unless you are trying to bring the drug war into it. Are you trying to turn this into the Drug war thread? B/c I'm fairly certain we already have one of those.

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 4:11 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2010 4:03:39 PM

^ Securing the borders and ports and interior enforcement are not mutually exclusive--and nowhere did I indicate that they are. But this, of course, is self-evident.

7/29/2010 5:47:15 PM

Quote :

"I don't think we have any choice but to document many of those currently in the country illegally in some way. They can have a path to citizenship, but there must be consequences for breaking our country's laws. "

I have no problem with making an effort to document everybody. In fact I'm very much in favor of it. However, I don't see any particular need to add consequences to people who have already put up with relatively difficult lives. Of course, that's because I mostly see them as violating an unjust, unenforceable, unwise law, so I'd no more want to punish them than I'd want to give trespassing citations to the black guys at the Woolworth's counter.

Quote :

"I can see no good reason that states can't check the immigration status of those detained in relation to another suspected crime and hold them until they can be turned over to federal officials."

A person shouldn't have to incriminate themselves. If you plead the fifth during questioning about raping and murdering little kids, the cops have to go find evidence if they want to convict you. If you plead the fifth about your immigration status, your ass would be on the next truck to Mexico.

Furthermore this will lead to racial profiling. I don't care what kind of training those cops go through. I could drive 140 mph down every road in Arizona, getting tickets constantly, and nobody's going to ask me to prove that I'm legal. As well they shouldn't, because there's no reason to. I'm a white guy with a southern US accent. How many tickets do you think a brown person with a Mexican name and accent will get before they ask him about his status?

Thirdly, as already mentioned in this thread, the law will cause tangible economic damage to the state. It will accomplish no tangible good, only the symbolic gesture of saying "Rule of law is good even when the laws are unjust, unenforceable, and unwise."

Quote :

"None of this is possible, however, unless we first secure our borders (for a number of reasons)!"

I maintain that opening our borders to anyone who "checks in" and doesn't pose a security threat would increase our border security immediately. Do that, and all the people that just want to come work or see family won't be sneaking across the Rio Grande -- they'll just go through the checkpoint. That means that the border patrol will be able to focus its efforts on combating dangerous people instead of chasing poor farmhands.

Quote :

"A free market is not a free-for-all market, Grumpy. Those who come here illegally aren't playing by the established rules. "

The established rules are opposed to the free market. If you're in favor of a free market, you should be opposed to those rules. That's all I said, in an exchange that dealt with immigration policy rather than our policy to those already here.

---

Quote :

"But there are some who want to enter this country for our entitlements/benefits which are much better than in their own country."

The benefits that illegals have access to are minimal. If anybody's getting their back wet sneaking over here for social security, they're in for quite the shock.

Ultimately it seems that your position is like this: Because one evil exists, we should do nothing about the other evil until the first one is fixed. This is unreasonable, as is your laserlike focus on entitlements. I assure you the nation does have problems that aren't directly related to welfare, medicare, or social security.

7/29/2010 6:18:57 PM

Anywhere I have said they are coming into the country to get on social security? You are deflecting. Have you ever been to rural mexico? They have cinderblock huts with a sat dish on them for schools. From certain times of day the kids for that grade/time show up and watch TV of school. So you think our schools sound a bit better than that? how about our medical care? Or the strength of the dollar to the peso? Like I said there are many reasons why people come, but I dont believe SS is very high on many people's list.

As for your take on my position, what evils do you suggest we do nothing about before fixing another? Our biggest fiscal disaster looming is entitlements. Im sorry if you cannot see the mountain dead ahead, but it is very real.

This is like we are in a runaway car heading off a cliff and you want to argue what radio station is playing. Sure there are other problems, but none bigger than the entitlements. Even the projections are horrible, and those tend to be on the more rosey side of things.

7/29/2010 9:29:35 PM

Shit man that sounds like mexicans, coming in here, never doing any work, hoarding all our dollars and just hanging around in schools and hospitals.

7/29/2010 10:12:45 PM

Quote :

"So you think our schools sound a bit better than that?"

Knowing what I know about our schools? No, not really.

Quote :

"how about our medical care?"

How often can they exploit this for free? In cases of emergency, yes. For routine things? Much less so.

Quote :

"Or the strength of the dollar to the peso?"

Means a lot less when you're in a place where you have to spend dollars to live.

Quote :

"As for your take on my position, what evils do you suggest we do nothing about before fixing another? Our biggest fiscal disaster looming is entitlements. Im sorry if you cannot see the mountain dead ahead, but it is very real. This is like we are in a runaway car heading off a cliff and you want to argue what radio station is playing. Sure there are other problems, but none bigger than the entitlements."

You are so blinded to everything else that it's almost pointless to argue with you. As I've said, you do your best to turn virtually every thread into a rant about the evil of entitlements.

And the supremacy you put on fiscal concerns over all others is disconcerting. It's as though you would support all kinds of evil to save us some ducats, and that worries me. We'd pay less in entitlements if we killed all the poor people, too.

And as Kris alluded to, you completely ignore any positive impacts that immigrants may have. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, not only do they pay taxes but they buy goods and services from local businesses, thereby enabling them to pay more taxes and hire more people who subsequently pay more taxes and collect fewer entitlements.

[Edited on July 30, 2010 at 12:36 AM. Reason : ]

7/30/2010 12:34:45 AM

We'd pay less in entitlements if we killed all the poor people, too

We'd have more money to pay for entitlements if we robbed all the middle and upper class people, too.


(the supremacy you put on all other concerns over fiscal ones is disconcerting.)

7/30/2010 1:09:32 AM

Sigh...I assume you can recognize sarcasm, which makes the rest of your post incomprehensible. If I'm wrong about your ability to know sarcasm when you see it, let me know.

7/30/2010 1:20:57 AM

Sigh...I assume you can recognize sarcasm, which makes the rest of your post incomprehensible. If I'm wrong about your ability to know sarcasm when you see it, let me know.

7/30/2010 1:28:41 AM

Good to know that folks are so "outraged" over the Arizona law that an L.A. union had to bus in protestors from California.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/28/local/la-me-0728-arizona-activists-20100728

7/30/2010 3:22:24 PM

Luna's link above has indicated that a lot of the immigrants have gone underground or left Arizona completely. Might have something to do with it too.

7/30/2010 4:03:12 PM

^ And perhaps it's because many Arizonans are, in fact, not outraged.

Poll: Support for Arizona Immigration Law Hits 57 Percent
July 13, 2010

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010460-503544.html

And even fewer Americans outside Arizona are.

Poll: Most support Arizona immigration law
Published: April 29, 2010

Quote :

"NEW YORK, April 29 (UPI) -- Seven in 10 U.S. adults support arresting people who can't prove they're in the United States legally, a poll about Arizona's new immigration law indicated."

http://tinyurl.com/2c6zaoo

[Edited on July 30, 2010 at 4:23 PM. Reason : Right?]

7/30/2010 4:22:52 PM

7 in 10 Germans Support Ridding the World of the Jewish Scourge.

[Edited on July 30, 2010 at 4:46 PM. Reason : godwin godwin godbble gobbble gobble]

7/30/2010 4:45:53 PM

^ Please stop posting.

7/30/2010 4:47:06 PM

um, you can't draw any conclusions about how people of a state feel by the fact that people from out of the state want to come in and protest too. thats just retarded reasoning. i suppose if every protester was from out of the state you may be able to make some assumptions, but thats not the case. even if a majority feels one way, 23% is still a sizable chunk of the population and its disingenuous to claim that no one is outraged because people from california are coming to protest. terrible logic.

7/30/2010 6:14:39 PM

^ If you could point to where I posted that the bused-in protestors were proof and the only proof that folks in Arizona aren't outraged, then maybe you'd have a case. I simply offered the article at issue as one bit of sarcastic evidence that folks in Arizona might not be as "outraged" (FYI: the quotation marks assign special meaning) as some here and elsewhere have suggested.

BTW, way to completely ignore the union involvement, the so-called protestors being trucked in from another state, and then redirect the focus on me with yet another tired "hooksaw's a poopyhead" attack.

Check your logic. Thanks.

7/30/2010 6:31:49 PM

Quote :

"Good to know that folks are so "outraged" over the Arizona law that an L.A. union had to bus in protestors from California. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/28/local/la-me-0728-arizona-activists-20100728"

7/30/2010 7:47:05 PM

Quote :

"I have no problem with making an effort to document everybody. "

Boy I don't know about this. Nothing good will come out of a federal ID program for everyone.

In fact, If it came down to letting illegals stay in the US or letting the gov't require everyone to have their Papers in "ordnung" ..I'd go with the former.

7/30/2010 11:22:05 PM

Quote :

"And perhaps it's because many Arizonans are, in fact, not outraged. Poll: Support for Arizona Immigration Law Hits 57 Percent"

That's not exactly an awe-inspiring number, not that it matters -- as has often been pointed out in arguments against me, a big part of our system is avoiding a tyranny of the majority.

It's not like busing in protesters is a new or objectionable phenomenon. All sorts of crazies bused into California to support their ban on gay marriage. As Supplanter has pointed out, there's a busload making the rounds (including a stop in Raleigh) currently for the same purpose. And I seem to recall that during the Civil Rights movement a great many people went out of state to protest what was happening in other states, where segregation laws were popular.

Quote :

"BTW, way to completely ignore the union involvement"

Eh, I wish it had been arranged differently, but something coming from a union doesn't make it inherently bad.

8/1/2010 1:24:23 AM

Im sure you have heard that a lot send money back home to relatives.

Article from the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/01immigration.html

And fiscal policy concerns me bc you get into serious issues once money dries up.

And I have never said immigration doesnt have positives, but it does have negatives as well. It is important to control.

And what SS number do they use to pay those federal taxes hoss?

8/1/2010 9:49:26 AM

In answer to your question about Social Security numbers for federal taxes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Taxpayer_Identification_Number

And yes, plenty of illegals send remittances. However, so do a great many legal immigrants from all over the world. There are countries whose economies are based largely on remittances from people who have moved to the US. Also, for every bit they send home the sending company (virtually always American) takes out a sizable chunk.

8/1/2010 11:51:02 AM

^so you concede the point, thanks. have a good one.

Thanks for the link too. Interesting. I also found this good article.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm

Seems like most are paying into SS through fake SS numbers, or not at all. But you only have about 2.5M people filing taxes with the ITIN.

[Edited on August 1, 2010 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 1, 2010 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2010 12:32:07 PM

what was your point again? paying with fake ss numbers is hardly a negative for your argument, as they are putting $9B into a system they can't collect benefits from. (per your article)

8/1/2010 12:55:08 PM

Quote :

"so you concede the point, thanks. have a good one."

I didn't even see that you had a point. In fact, I still don't. I'm guessing its something along the lines of, "They send money home!!! This completely negates any positive impacts they may have locally!!!!11uno"

Quote :

"Seems like most are paying into SS through fake SS numbers, or not at all. But you only have about 2.5M people filing taxes with the ITIN. "

And your problem here is...what? As m52ncsu points out, they're dumping money into a program that is constantly running low, and they can't take anything back out from it. Also it seems that many are paying more than they owe because they don't want to draw attention to themselves.

Hey, if you're just gonna use your fake SS number to pay extra money, knock yourself out I guess.

Quote :

"The IRS defends the ITIN system, despite criticism that some illegal immigrants have used it to open bank accounts, get mortgages and establish a record of residency and taxpaying they hope might someday lead to legal status."

Oh, the humanity! What a bunch of conniving little bastards, with their treacherous plots to become financially-responsible homeowners, taxpayers, and citizens.

And perhaps my favorite lines come at the end:

Quote :

"Ford, of Middle Tennessee State University, said a majority of economists agree that illegal immigrants are a net benefit for the U.S. economy. He said the tax contributions from illegal immigrants, including sales taxes, property taxes and excise taxes (such as the gas tax), are significant. He calculates that illegal immigrants contributed $428 billion dollars to the nation's $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006. That number assumes illegal immigrants are 30% less productive than other workers. "If anything we need more immigrants coming into the country, not less, especially with the baby boomers retiring," he said."

8/1/2010 2:08:23 PM

8/1/2010 4:04:56 PM