Arizona style immigration law coming to Virginia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Pol-Wants-Arizona-Illegal-Immigration-Law-for-Virginia-96596719.html

I would support this. Va has been overrun with illegal immigrants.

Over 60 percent of Americans nationwide are in favor of Arizona's soon to be enacted law, I hope it comes to VA because I am so damn sick and tired or paying for illlegals medical, food stamps, housing, and sending their kids to public schools. Charity begins at home, we should take of American citizens first, and those that are here legally.

First off, illegal immigrants aren't eligible for food stamps or public housing. They do frequent hospitals and the school system. But, ultimately, every study points to them contributing more economically than they take. So, I hope you are ready for all the economic ramifications if such policies spread nationwide. I bet you'll sing a different tone then.

Ideally, we wouldn't have to choose between two such ugly options: the current immigration situation or Arizona style law, but that's what we got right now.

Then they are using someone else's documentation to get food stamps, and live inpublic housing with their hundreds of relatives andt heir jalopie taking up most of the on street parking.

What evidence do you have that this is happening?

One of the major problems we have with this debate is conflating "illegal immigrants" with "immigrants". Many folks see immigrants who are here legally, documented, and paying taxes taking advantage of social services and are bothered by this. And there is certainly room to criticize the welfare state and a semi-open border policy. But just because someone has a Spanish accent and receives public assistance means they are an illegal immigrant cheating the system. Without evidence for your claims, they are baseless, wrong, and unfair.

I agree that vast characterizations are unfair, although it seems the government and certain people on this board actually are the ones who want to conflate illegal immigrants with immigrants. First by not characterizing illegal entry or overstaying visas as an offense, and second by pushing for amnesties which would of course entitle people who entered illegally to all rights and privileges of regularized immigrants (with a 'small fine' of course).

[Anonymous]

Well, there are certainly similarities and shared characteristics between illegal and legal immigrants. They are not diametrically opposed opposites.

No one has denied that folks who did not go through the proper channels to enter and/or overstayed Visas are in violation of immigration statutes. I think all you have seen is disagreement over the severity of this offense from a moral and ethical perspective. As for amnesty, the goal there is largely part of a larger reform effort to make it easier for ALL people who want to enter to be able to. That really isn't "conflating" at all. We are not confusing two different but linked groups. Instead we are advocating that the system that has created the differences between these groups be reformed or eliminated.

Conflation is a problem when "illegal immigrant" becomes synonymous with "brown person with Spanish accent" or even just "brown person" and then 'problems' with citizens who match that criteria ('problems' being possibly defined as use of various aspects of the welfare state, which is 'problematic' only if we recognize it in its entirety as 'problematic') are projected upon people incapable of being a part of those problems, creating some sort of SUPER enemy to fear and demonize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's wonder this... why is "Illegal Immigration" a problem? All of the stats claiming that undocumented immigrants cause crime have been proven false time and time again. So it is not a safety or crime issue. And the crime that IS attributed to undocumented immigrants is largely the result of our country's failed drug war. But that is another conversation for another day.

How about the idea that they are a drain on society? Yes, undocumented immigrants do draw resources from public services and generally contribute less if they are not working on the books. At the same time, their off-the-books work, which not only save employers in terms of wages but also in terms of payroll taxes, allows for the low prices you pay. Do you want to pay $5 for a head of lettuce and $7 for tomatoes? If we booted out all the undocumented immigrants now, your financial situation would be far worse in most cases.

So, we've debunked the two largest arguments: crime and economics. What else is there? Seems like we're back to racism, xenophobia, and jingoism. Just as I presumed.

Really? How do you think Sandra Levy's parents feel? Even one rape and murder committed by an illegal is one too many. She would be alive today if this jerk had not been in country illegally.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Really? How do you think Sandra Levy's parents feel? Even one rape and murder committed by an illegal is one too many. She would be alive today if this jerk had not been in country illegally.

Nobody is arguing that illegal immigrants commit no crime. The argument is that they are not responsible for huge increases in crime such as the anti-immigration folks allege. Ingmar Guandique is no more representative of the average illegal immigrant than Scott Roeder is of the average Christian white male.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Really? How do you think Sandra Levy's parents feel? Even one rape and murder committed by an illegal is one too many. She would be alive today if this jerk had not been in country illegally.

Nobody is arguing that illegal immigrants commit no crime. The argument is that they are not responsible for huge increases in crime such as the anti-immigration folks allege. Ingmar Guandique is no more representative of the average illegal immigrant than Scott Roeder is of the average Christian white male.

Read the crime reports, better yet, spend a day in court and listen to the names of who is being charged, the tide has turned, ask any police officer.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Read the crime reports, better yet, spend a day in court and listen to the names of who is being charged, the tide has turned, ask any police officer.

The statistics are quite clear. BTW, I'm interested in how you are able to determine immigration status by someone's name. I know that you would never engage in ethnic profiling because there is absolutely nothing racist about the anti-immigration movement. So, you obviously have some special power. Can you share the secret?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Really? How do you think Sandra Levy's parents feel? Even one rape and murder committed by an illegal is one too many. She would be alive today if this jerk had not been in country illegally.

Nobody is arguing that illegal immigrants commit no crime. The argument is that they are not responsible for huge increases in crime such as the anti-immigration folks allege. Ingmar Guandique is no more representative of the average illegal immigrant than Scott Roeder is of the average Christian white male.

Read the crime reports, better yet, spend a day in court and listen to the names of who is being charged, the tide has turned, ask any police officer.

What names do Illegals use? Please explain.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure what the names of illegals sound like, nor the assumption that all are Latino though statistically most (not all) coming over the border are. However, I would say that one crime committed in this country by an illegal enterer or overstayer 'caught and released' for another crime without immediate detention and deportation proceedings is one too many. I too pity the parents of Chandra Levy. She would be alive but for a chance encounter with an illegal evil-doer. We have enough legal evil-doers in this country--why add to the plate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Really? How do you think Sandra Levy's parents feel? Even one rape and murder committed by an illegal is one too many. She would be alive today if this jerk had not been in country illegally.

Nobody is arguing that illegal immigrants commit no crime. The argument is that they are not responsible for huge increases in crime such as the anti-immigration folks allege. Ingmar Guandique is no more representative of the average illegal immigrant than Scott Roeder is of the average Christian white male.

Read the crime reports, better yet, spend a day in court and listen to the names of who is being charged, the tide has turned, ask any police officer.

Since Prince William County banned the day labor pick up sites crime has decreased considerably.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Since Prince William County banned the day labor pick up sites crime has decreased considerably.

I assume you are referring to the immigration laws the County passed in 2007. Day labor sites haven't been banned. Regardless, can you cite any evidence to support your claim? According to the crime statistics available here:

http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/12155.pdf (PDF)

Prince William County had seen a drop in crime every year from 2004 until 2007 when the anti-immigrant law was passed. In 2008, the crime rate rose. In 2009, the rate dropped again to almost exactly what it was in 2007 (19.5 vs 19.8). If anything, one could argue that the trend of significant annual drops in the crime rate was reversed by the passage of the law and the rate has since plateaued.

Moreover, crimes against people were actually up in 2009. So, while there was an overall drop in 2009, it basically was because there were fewer car thefts. Meanwhile, the number of rapes doubled. I don't know if you consider that an actual improvment or not.

The report also says, "Of all persons arrested or summonsed in Prince William County, 2.2% were determined to lack legal status." So, that suggests that illegal immigrants are not really a major problem.

[Anonymous]

If a member of the 2.2% kills you or your family member, it is a major problem.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:If a member of the 2.2% kills you or your family member, it is a major problem.

I think my time is better spent worrying about the other 97.8%. Also, 12 people were arrested for murder last year in PWC. None of them were illegals. So, while your statement is correct, it does not appear to have much basis in reality.

[Anonymous]

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced yesterday that he has joined a coalition of nine states filing an amicus brief in federal court supporting Arizona's new immigration reform law. The Arizona law is the subject of a lawsuit filed by the Obama Administration.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a member of the 2.2% kills you or your family member, it is a major problem.

I think my time is better spent worrying about the other 97.8%. Also, 12 people were arrested for murder last year in PWC. None of them were illegals. So, while your statement is correct, it does not appear to have much basis in reality.

Sure. Because you are alive you have the luxury to worry bout' the rest. Ingmar Guandique ring a bell? ONE life is too many. How about curtailed lifestyle? Would you encourage young ladies to jog (as is their right) in Rock Creek Park after this incident?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071605988.html

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Sure. Because you are alive you have the luxury to worry bout' the rest. Ingmar Guandique ring a bell? ONE life is too many. How about curtailed lifestyle? Would you encourage young ladies to jog (as is their right) in Rock Creek Park after this incident?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071605988.html

I know that this is a tremendously difficult concept for you because I have seen you struggle with it repeatedly and in multiple threads. But, one case has very little bearing on the big picture. As I said on this very same page (so, yes, having written the name not more than a couple of days ago, it does ring a bell, but you may want to work on your reading comprehension):

"Ingmar Guandique is no more representative of the average illegal immigrant than Scott Roeder is of the average Christian white male."

Should white Christian males be defined by the fact that they have a propensity to kill abortion doctors? Should all Christian white males be tarnished by the deeds of Scott Roeder? You know, Roeder had previously been arrested. Does the fact that he was released and went on to kill someone say anything important about our justice system?

You are making an argument that is not a winner and you appear determined to ride it all the way down through its death spiral. What started with "immigrants cause crime waves" -- only to be proven false -- became one guy killed a person. So, do you really believe that "All illegal immigrants are crime threats because of Ingmar Guandique" to be a serious argument?