Arizona style immigration law coming to Virginia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you conveniently didn't answer my question. At heart, the majority of Arizonans crave a firm action in illegal immigration. What are Obama and Holder proposing besides lawsuits that will undermines the steps the state has taken, and ignoring their chief executive when she calls or comes to town?

I'm surprised that you don't seem to know that Obama recently deployed an additional 1200 National Guard troops and an extra $500 million to be used to secure the border with Mexico. As you also should know, Obama supports comprehensive immigration reform. Unfortunately, Republicans -- even McCain who previously co-authored such a bill -- don't want to work with him on such legislation.

But, let's turn the question around. What would you like Obama and Holder to do that they aren't doing now?

I do know actually. I would like far more National Guard troops. I would like the border secured. I would like employers penalized. I would like police everywhere to have the ability to check status if a person is arrested, and if here illegally pass them on to ICE.
To your point--AZ asked for months for far more National Guard and were stonewalled until they passed this law. The amount if guardsmen they received were a day late and a penny short. Have I answered YOUR question?

Any state can check the status if a person is charged with a crime. That exists today. I don't see why people can't understand that. And the National Guard thing is incredible. If you knew what the border is like, you would realize why several thousand guardsmen wouldn't make a difference.

OK--so the 'meat' of the AZ law duplicates laws that already exist that you apparently have no problem with (except in places where police inanely aren't allowed to check the status of persons arrested for crimes!) . And regarding your point B, basically, you are saying that America can't secure its border if it has the will. You are also saying, of course, that the several thousand guardsmen Obama did send were a cynical pittance. I think that's what the people of AZ have figured out by now. So they've been offered no alternative, and are being sued for their law. That's change we can all believe in!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
OK--so the 'meat' of the AZ law duplicates laws that already exist that you apparently have no problem with (except in places where police inanely aren't allowed to check the status of persons arrested for crimes!) .

You clearly have no idea about what is included with the Arizona law. If the "meat" of the law simply allowed the police to check the immigration status of arrested people, there would be no argument. The entire issue is that you don't have to be arrested, or indeed to have committed a crime, for police in Arizona to be authorized to check your legal status. It might be a good idea to at least understand the basics of the laws that you support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you conveniently didn't answer my question. At heart, the majority of Arizonans crave a firm action in illegal immigration. What are Obama and Holder proposing besides lawsuits that will undermines the steps the state has taken, and ignoring their chief executive when she calls or comes to town?

I'm surprised that you don't seem to know that Obama recently deployed an additional 1200 National Guard troops and an extra $500 million to be used to secure the border with Mexico. As you also should know, Obama supports comprehensive immigration reform. Unfortunately, Republicans -- even McCain who previously co-authored such a bill -- don't want to work with him on such legislation.

But, let's turn the question around. What would you like Obama and Holder to do that they aren't doing now?

I do know actually. I would like far more National Guard troops. I would like the border secured. I would like employers penalized. I would like police everywhere to have the ability to check status if a person is arrested, and if here illegally pass them on to ICE.
To your point--AZ asked for months for far more National Guard and were stonewalled until they passed this law. The amount if guardsmen they received were a day late and a penny short. Have I answered YOUR question?

Any state can check the status if a person is charged with a crime. That exists today. I don't see why people can't understand that. And the National Guard thing is incredible. If you knew what the border is like, you would realize why several thousand guardsmen wouldn't make a difference.

OK--so the 'meat' of the AZ law duplicates laws that already exist that you apparently have no problem with (except in places where police inanely aren't allowed to check the status of persons arrested for crimes!) . And regarding your point B, basically, you are saying that America can't secure its border if it has the will. You are also saying, of course, that the several thousand guardsmen Obama did send were a cynical pittance. I think that's what the people of AZ have figured out by now. So they've been offered no alternative, and are being sued for their law. That's change we can all believe in!

No, you don't get it. In arizona you don't even have to be charged with a crime. Being charged means you had an arraignment hearing in front of a judge. Waaaaayy different from someone stopping you on the street and saying "did you drop that candy wrapper on the ground?" If you are arraigned, it means there is enough substance to the charge that the government is willing to prosecute you. In all 50 states, they can and will check your status if you are formally charged. In Arizona they can run you in because they don't like how you look with any pretext they can come up with. And since there is no one but you and the officer, that could be entirely fictional.

As for the border, I am saying that 3,000 miles of border and eight shifts of people would take 18,000 soldiers to defend at a length of one soldier per mile 24 hours a day. The current fully loaded cost of a soldier at war is $400,000, which is the cost including the technology, administrative, and other costs. I'm not sure what the domestic cost is, but it is way higher than a soldier's salary. Drones aren't cheap. That's $7 billion for every soldier-mile. So multiply that by how many soldiers you think it takes to patrol one mile of border.

[Anonymous]

Sorry it's 2000 miles, 3000 km. The number would be 12,000 troops at one per mile. So 5 billion per soldier-mile.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

"As for the border, I am saying that 3,000 miles of border and eight shifts of people would take 18,000 soldiers to defend at a length of one soldier per mile 24 hours a day. The current fully loaded cost of a soldier at war is $400,000, which is the cost including the technology, administrative, and other costs. I'm not sure what the domestic cost is, but it is way higher than a soldier's salary. Drones aren't cheap. That's $7 billion for every soldier-mile. So multiply that by how many soldiers you think it takes to patrol one mile of border. "

Why do we need soldiers at war??? Are we fighting a war??? Who is the enemy? Poor people trying to make a better life for themselves? I bet your glad we didn't have a war on immigration when your ancestors came here. We could have had ships being blown out of the water as they crossed the Atlantic. But I suppose those ships weren't full of brown colored people, so it would have been wrong to declare war on them, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you conveniently didn't answer my question. At heart, the majority of Arizonans crave a firm action in illegal immigration. What are Obama and Holder proposing besides lawsuits that will undermines the steps the state has taken, and ignoring their chief executive when she calls or comes to town?

I'm surprised that you don't seem to know that Obama recently deployed an additional 1200 National Guard troops and an extra $500 million to be used to secure the border with Mexico. As you also should know, Obama supports comprehensive immigration reform. Unfortunately, Republicans -- even McCain who previously co-authored such a bill -- don't want to work with him on such legislation.

But, let's turn the question around. What would you like Obama and Holder to do that they aren't doing now?

I do know actually. I would like far more National Guard troops. I would like the border secured. I would like employers penalized. I would like police everywhere to have the ability to check status if a person is arrested, and if here illegally pass them on to ICE.
To your point--AZ asked for months for far more National Guard and were stonewalled until they passed this law. The amount if guardsmen they received were a day late and a penny short. Have I answered YOUR question?

Any state can check the status if a person is charged with a crime. That exists today. I don't see why people can't understand that. And the National Guard thing is incredible. If you knew what the border is like, you would realize why several thousand guardsmen wouldn't make a difference.

OK--so the 'meat' of the AZ law duplicates laws that already exist that you apparently have no problem with (except in places where police inanely aren't allowed to check the status of persons arrested for crimes!) . And regarding your point B, basically, you are saying that America can't secure its border if it has the will. You are also saying, of course, that the several thousand guardsmen Obama did send were a cynical pittance. I think that's what the people of AZ have figured out by now. So they've been offered no alternative, and are being sued for their law. That's change we can all believe in!

No, you don't get it. In arizona you don't even have to be charged with a crime. Being charged means you had an arraignment hearing in front of a judge. Waaaaayy different from someone stopping you on the street and saying "did you drop that candy wrapper on the ground?" If you are arraigned, it means there is enough substance to the charge that the government is willing to prosecute you. In all 50 states, they can and will check your status if you are formally charged. In Arizona they can run you in because they don't like how you look with any pretext they can come up with. And since there is no one but you and the officer, that could be entirely fictional.

As for the border, I am saying that 3,000 miles of border and eight shifts of people would take 18,000 soldiers to defend at a length of one soldier per mile 24 hours a day. The current fully loaded cost of a soldier at war is $400,000, which is the cost including the technology, administrative, and other costs. I'm not sure what the domestic cost is, but it is way higher than a soldier's salary. Drones aren't cheap. That's $7 billion for every soldier-mile. So multiply that by how many soldiers you think it takes to patrol one mile of border.

Your math is funky. A soldier in the US requires billeting, food etc. regardless of where he/she is -- those costs are already programmed in. So put them on the border.

[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.

YES, I want to pay more for tomatoes and lettuce rather than exploit farm-hands. How awful you are to protect this abject exploitation of the most defenseless. We could also implement a sane migrant farm-worker policy where farm workers were paid fair wages and received protections--rather than the underground economy you seek to protect for obscure reasons. Do you run a farm by any chance?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OK--so the 'meat' of the AZ law duplicates laws that already exist that you apparently have no problem with (except in places where police inanely aren't allowed to check the status of persons arrested for crimes!) .

You clearly have no idea about what is included with the Arizona law. If the "meat" of the law simply allowed the police to check the immigration status of arrested people, there would be no argument. The entire issue is that you don't have to be arrested, or indeed to have committed a crime, for police in Arizona to be authorized to check your legal status. It might be a good idea to at least understand the basics of the laws that you support.

When were you last pulled over and the police didn't ask you for ID? Legal residents are required by federal law to carry their green cards by the way. Protest that much lately?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

YES, I want to pay more for tomatoes and lettuce rather than exploit farm-hands. How awful you are to protect this abject exploitation of the most defenseless. We could also implement a sane migrant farm-worker policy where farm workers were paid fair wages and received protections--rather than the underground economy you seek to protect for obscure reasons. Do you run a farm by any chance?

You completely misunderstood my point. I don't agree with the treatment of current immigrant laborers. But the realities are what they are. And the arguments held up in opposition to immigration usually fall into one of those two categories. And they are completely baseless.

I would personally gladly pay more to ensure that laborers are being treated fairly. It is why I try to buy union, fair-trade, etc. Most people, knowledgeably or not, benefit from illegal immigration, but oppose it because they've been sold a bunch of lies about it that play on tendencies to fear/oppose those who are different from them. It is why poor whites, in droves, vote for economic policies that are not to their advantage, because they've been sold lies about "black welfare queens" and the like. It's nonsense and needs to stop.

I agree that there need to be massive reforms around immigration AND migrant workers' rights. But this legislation does NOTHING to address that, and will achieve all of the negatives of limiting immigration without achieving any benefits.

I am not a farmer and do not support the exploitation of any marginalized group. But when dealing with rabid people who have no problem with this, you have to meet them where they are when debating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OK--so the 'meat' of the AZ law duplicates laws that already exist that you apparently have no problem with (except in places where police inanely aren't allowed to check the status of persons arrested for crimes!) .

You clearly have no idea about what is included with the Arizona law. If the "meat" of the law simply allowed the police to check the immigration status of arrested people, there would be no argument. The entire issue is that you don't have to be arrested, or indeed to have committed a crime, for police in Arizona to be authorized to check your legal status. It might be a good idea to at least understand the basics of the laws that you support.

When were you last pulled over and the police didn't ask you for ID? Legal residents are required by federal law to carry their green cards by the way. Protest that much lately?

But the problem is, the police aren't going to ask ME, because I'm white. They are going to ask the brown people. So, you are imposing something on one group of citizens based on the color of their skin. People who are born here and grew up here and are legal citizens will need to carry their birth certificates with them as they walk to the store, in case they happen to bump into a cop. Is that really what we want? I thought conservatives were for small government...?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:When were you last pulled over and the police didn't ask you for ID? Legal residents are required by federal law to carry their green cards by the way. Protest that much lately?

If by "pulled over" you mean "stopped while driving a car", I have been asked every time for my driver's license. A valid license is a requirement for driving, so I don't have a problem with that. But, the Arizona law is not limited to traffic stops. The defenders of this law constantly ignore reality. In reality, not everyone drives. In reality, not everyone trots down to the DMV or wherever to get a non-driver's identification. In reality, those who have identification don't always carry it with them. In reality, most of us have the right to refuse to identify ourselves, let alone provide proof of legal status.

I would still like to know why so many of those who think the AZ law is so jolly good also think being asked to tell a Census worker how many people live in their home is overly invasive. So far, there has been no good explanation.

[Anonymous]

It appears to me that the issue is not the law as much as whether you see illegal aliens who take jobs and demand services or undocumented immigrants, seeking freedom and working hard at jobs Americans don't want. We may argue about the facts, but our basic view of reality colors everything.

[Anonymous]

"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. "


Well, I am very much against this law and agree with your first two points about illegal immigrants but I do think illegal immigration is a problem as an ethical and human rights issue. Yes ,people do benefit from illegal immigrants working off the books in terms of lower prices but labor laws are there for a reason to protect against abuse. I don't think its right to have a separate underground workforce that doesn't receive the same safety protections as others.

Illegal immigration is not fair to those who wait patiently to enter the country through legal means.

Illegal immigration also fuels another level of crime organization involving the smugglers who prey on the immigrants trying to enter the country. Little kids dying in overheated trucks crossing the desert, immigrants being subjected to criminal extortion to cross the border, and other horrific situations are involved in all this. So many people want to assume that the immigrants just ran across someone's backyard and then go off on their own getting a job and services. This is not what is happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you conveniently didn't answer my question. At heart, the majority of Arizonans crave a firm action in illegal immigration. What are Obama and Holder proposing besides lawsuits that will undermines the steps the state has taken, and ignoring their chief executive when she calls or comes to town?

I'm surprised that you don't seem to know that Obama recently deployed an additional 1200 National Guard troops and an extra $500 million to be used to secure the border with Mexico. As you also should know, Obama supports comprehensive immigration reform. Unfortunately, Republicans -- even McCain who previously co-authored such a bill -- don't want to work with him on such legislation.

But, let's turn the question around. What would you like Obama and Holder to do that they aren't doing now?

I do know actually. I would like far more National Guard troops. I would like the border secured. I would like employers penalized. I would like police everywhere to have the ability to check status if a person is arrested, and if here illegally pass them on to ICE.
To your point--AZ asked for months for far more National Guard and were stonewalled until they passed this law. The amount if guardsmen they received were a day late and a penny short. Have I answered YOUR question?

Any state can check the status if a person is charged with a crime. That exists today. I don't see why people can't understand that. And the National Guard thing is incredible. If you knew what the border is like, you would realize why several thousand guardsmen wouldn't make a difference.

OK--so the 'meat' of the AZ law duplicates laws that already exist that you apparently have no problem with (except in places where police inanely aren't allowed to check the status of persons arrested for crimes!) . And regarding your point B, basically, you are saying that America can't secure its border if it has the will. You are also saying, of course, that the several thousand guardsmen Obama did send were a cynical pittance. I think that's what the people of AZ have figured out by now. So they've been offered no alternative, and are being sued for their law. That's change we can all believe in!

No, you don't get it. In arizona you don't even have to be charged with a crime. Being charged means you had an arraignment hearing in front of a judge. Waaaaayy different from someone stopping you on the street and saying "did you drop that candy wrapper on the ground?" If you are arraigned, it means there is enough substance to the charge that the government is willing to prosecute you. In all 50 states, they can and will check your status if you are formally charged. In Arizona they can run you in because they don't like how you look with any pretext they can come up with. And since there is no one but you and the officer, that could be entirely fictional.

As for the border, I am saying that 3,000 miles of border and eight shifts of people would take 18,000 soldiers to defend at a length of one soldier per mile 24 hours a day. The current fully loaded cost of a soldier at war is $400,000, which is the cost including the technology, administrative, and other costs. I'm not sure what the domestic cost is, but it is way higher than a soldier's salary. Drones aren't cheap. That's $7 billion for every soldier-mile. So multiply that by how many soldiers you think it takes to patrol one mile of border.

Your math is funky. A soldier in the US requires billeting, food etc. regardless of where he/she is -- those costs are already programmed in. So put them on the border.

That is not true. Costs go up when troops are deployed on any mission. Your idea is nice in theory, but the military is far from a fixed cost budget item.