Arizona style immigration law coming to Virginia?

[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. "


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.

I wrote the original post and agree with you. But the issue is not with the illegal immigrants then, it is with the system as a whole. So, yes, there are problems relating to illegal immigration, but I disagree with heaping that on the immigrants themselves. I didn't discuss that in my post because I was dealing specifically with the venom spewed at immigrants as the root of all problems in America, which is pure BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your math is funky. You got it off a website. Have lots of family in the military--would not come close to your estimates. That being said, I have nothing against throwing everything we have towards sealing the border, and then perhaps examining legal immigration quotas and migrant worker programs. These small measures that AZ wants to implement in the interim--most of which pre-exist in forms elsewhere--are fine by me until the federal govt. decides to address the above two points. That is something that clearly states cannot do alone. Please stop being so hysterical about this---illegal immigrants are leaving AZ in droves and no doubt heading towards our more hospitable area, so you can greet them with open arms, volunteer your services at Casa de Maryland, provide ESL lessons etc. in line with your open arms generosity. Don't force the people of AZ to do it though; think they've had enough.

[Anonymous]

"...That being said, I have nothing against throwing everything we have towards sealing the border..."

Isn't that a bit extreme? Is the border REALLY our biggest issue as a nation, that we should throw everything towards sealing it? Wow. Perspective please. Explain why immigration is such a pressing issue that we ought to throw everything at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your math is funky. You got it off a website. Have lots of family in the military--would not come close to your estimates. That being said, I have nothing against throwing everything we have towards sealing the border, and then perhaps examining legal immigration quotas and migrant worker programs. These small measures that AZ wants to implement in the interim--most of which pre-exist in forms elsewhere--are fine by me until the federal govt. decides to address the above two points. That is something that clearly states cannot do alone. Please stop being so hysterical about this---illegal immigrants are leaving AZ in droves and no doubt heading towards our more hospitable area, so you can greet them with open arms, volunteer your services at Casa de Maryland, provide ESL lessons etc. in line with your open arms generosity. Don't force the people of AZ to do it though; think they've had enough.

Just because I think the cost is high to put troops on the border does not mean that I am for legal immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth. But regardless of your family in the military, the cost of deployed troops is high. The number is widely reported at $400K per soldier in the ME right now. It is not incorrect. You can look at the appropriations and the troop levels yourself. The reason is technology and the organization that has to support each active troop. Like I said, drones are not cheap. Neither are tanks, battle armour, listening posts, etc. Not that it would have to be the same for border protection, but the current plan is for a lot of high tech to be used to monitor. And that's what you need if you have only one or two people per mile of border.

Look how much higher it is in Afghanistan according to Congressional Research Service: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63121-crs-calculates-cost-of-us-troop-presence-in-afghanistan That works out to $847K per soldier per year! 3.6 billion a month / 51,000 troops = 70K per soldier per month = 840K

Here is more history on cost per soldier: http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2008/12/31/cost-for-a-single-soldier-to-fight-in-iraq-or-afghanistan-is-about-775000-per-year/

Sure, it's a lot more expensive to send troops there than Arizona. I already said that. But it is not as cheap as the salary of the troops, not by a longshot.

[Anonymous]

Obviously I meant to say "does not mean that I am for illegal immigration".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"...That being said, I have nothing against throwing everything we have towards sealing the border..."

Isn't that a bit extreme? Is the border REALLY our biggest issue as a nation, that we should throw everything towards sealing it? Wow. Perspective please. Explain why immigration is such a pressing issue that we ought to throw everything at it.

No. It's not extreme. We've had our amnesty (Ronald Reagan). It's time to have a regulated border, and then talk quotas etc. Secure the border first.

[Anonymous]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/18/federal-lands-arizona-travel-warnings-place/

The ultimate irony of the federal government closing of parts of national park land in AZ and issuing warnings to American visitors to these parks may be that visitors are supposed to assess activity that seems illegal, suspicious or out of place...and then report it to the .... police! Who presumably, according to some opinions here, should not be allowed to ask for ID. Brilliant loop we've got here! Enjoy your next visit to AZ's national parks .


"On another page titled "Border Concerns," the website warns that visitors should be aware that "drug smuggling routes" pass through the park.

"If you see any activity which looks illegal, suspicious, or out of place, please do not intervene," the website reads. "Note your location. Call 911 or report it to a ranger as quickly as possible. Each year hundreds of people travel north through the park seeking to enter the United States."

Visitors are also warned to be mindful of illegal immigrants within Ironwood Forest National Monument, a 129,000-acre federal parkland in the Sonoran Desert.

"All suspected illegal activities should be reported to [the Bureau of Land Management] or local law enforcement authorities," Ironwood Forest's website reads. "Visitors should stay safe by avoiding contact with persons exhibiting suspicious behavior or engaged in dangerous activities. Drive with caution and look for fast-moving vehicles and pedestrians on back roads."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"...That being said, I have nothing against throwing everything we have towards sealing the border..."

Isn't that a bit extreme? Is the border REALLY our biggest issue as a nation, that we should throw everything towards sealing it? Wow. Perspective please. Explain why immigration is such a pressing issue that we ought to throw everything at it.

No. It's not extreme. We've had our amnesty (Ronald Reagan). It's time to have a regulated border, and then talk quotas etc. Secure the border first.

But should a regulated border come at the expense of the multitude of other issues our country is facing? Because that is what this commenter is advocating for when he/she says we should throw "everything". That would imply that nothing should get in the way of solving this problem, which would seem to indicate it is the highest priority. That is what the original commenter said. I'm just seeking clarification. Even if you DO think that we must stem the flow of illegal immigrants by securing the border, I struggle to see how you think it should trump the other issues our country is facing including, but not limited to (in no particular order):
1.) Unemployment
2.) Education
3.) National debt
4.) Oil spill
5.) 2 wars

I don't even think we have to get into partisan politics to agree that those are all probably bigger issues than immigration. I'm also sure I'm forgetting some. Too bad. If we follow that commenter's approach, we'd be doing everything we can about immigration and just leaving these issues for another day. Hooray for misplaced priorities!

[Anonymous]

Are you serious? Again, another parser. Sealing the border takes priority before any other action on immigration. You can still fight the oil spill my friend--suit up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you serious? Again, another parser. Sealing the border takes priority before any other action on immigration. You can still fight the oil spill my friend--suit up!

Perhaps if you went easier on spin and exaggeration you would not get us so parsed off at you.

[Anonymous]

Oh, I get it.

The original commenter can use hyperbole to achieve his point. When we take his hyperbole at face value, WE are the ones being ridiculous. If he didn't mean to imply that sealing the border should trump everything else, he should not have used the language he did. Deliberately or not, he stated that we should "throw everything we have towards sealing the border". If that's not what he meant, he should have said so. As he didn't, all we have to go on is what he DID say. If you don't like the hyperbole, take issue with the person first employing such language, not those who are engaging his point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I get it.

The original commenter can use hyperbole to achieve his point. When we take his hyperbole at face value, WE are the ones being ridiculous. If he didn't mean to imply that sealing the border should trump everything else, he should not have used the language he did. Deliberately or not, he stated that we should "throw everything we have towards sealing the border". If that's not what he meant, he should have said so. As he didn't, all we have to go on is what he DID say. If you don't like the hyperbole, take issue with the person first employing such language, not those who are engaging his point.

Hey, we're all anonymous. For all we know you are the OP, so you can hardly claim we are discriminating against you, whoever you are. I say "we", but I'm not sure whether you are complaining about me, the other poster(s) who complained about your language, or both (all three?) of us.

BTW, how do you know OP is "he" unless you're him, since the default assumption around here is usually "she"? I think you're diddling us, you sly joker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I get it.

The original commenter can use hyperbole to achieve his point. When we take his hyperbole at face value, WE are the ones being ridiculous. If he didn't mean to imply that sealing the border should trump everything else, he should not have used the language he did. Deliberately or not, he stated that we should "throw everything we have towards sealing the border". If that's not what he meant, he should have said so. As he didn't, all we have to go on is what he DID say. If you don't like the hyperbole, take issue with the person first employing such language, not those who are engaging his point.

Hey, we're all anonymous. For all we know you are the OP, so you can hardly claim we are discriminating against you, whoever you are. I say "we", but I'm not sure whether you are complaining about me, the other poster(s) who complained about your language, or both (all three?) of us.

BTW, how do you know OP is "he" unless you're him, since the default assumption around here is usually "she"? I think you're diddling us, you sly joker.

Um, what??? When did I claim I'm being discriminated again? I didn't. All I said was it's ridiculous to attack people for responding to a hyperbolic comment while ignoring the initial statement. Check your reading comprehension.

As for why I used "he", I usually use "he/she" but that can become cumbersome to type.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, we're all anonymous. For all we know you are the OP, so you can hardly claim we are discriminating against you, whoever you are. I say "we", but I'm not sure whether you are complaining about me, the other poster(s) who complained about your language, or both (all three?) of us.

BTW, how do you know OP is "he" unless you're him, since the default assumption around here is usually "she"? I think you're diddling us, you sly joker.

Um, what??? When did I claim I'm being discriminated again? I didn't. All I said was it's ridiculous to attack people for responding to a hyperbolic comment while ignoring the initial statement. Check your reading comprehension.

As for why I used "he", I usually use "he/she" but that can become cumbersome to type.

I ought to quit trying to be humorous; it seems to get lost in email. Other than pulling your leg, I was trying to make the point that for one anonymous person to take offense at a comment by another anonymous person is a waste of time. Even if readers were to accept nasty baseless criticism of you, what does it matter when they have no idea who you are.

Anyhow, even though I don't think any of my criticism was baseless, and I tried to keep it from being nasty, I apologize for any offense I caused and for any attempts at humor that fell flat. Once you raised the parsing issue, my wit, such as it is, was whetted.

[Anonymous]

I'm a she. I think securing our border is a great idea; hardly a novel one. You've said it costs too much. I say it's worth it. Now you are bringing up competing priorities etc. I actually think our great country can handle competing priorities and get a handle on immigration once and for all. You seem to think we can't.... OK. So that's where we stand. Blathering on about hyperbole (this is a comment board; surely you expect some?) seems a bit of a dead end, but have at it. I'm not playing that round of super-parsing people's speech. I'd prefer to think about your ideas and not expect you to spend hours crafting every phrase.