Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration l

[Orkid]

Edited June 23, 2010 by Orkid

[Rosewin]

WHY are 'we' (those of us who recognize illegal immigration is a crime and the US has a problem with it that needs to be handled!) being alluded to as 'racist' and our responses 'hate'?

No one was accused of that! It was a fair question to ask of those presenting data from places like FAIR or ALIPAC, which have extremist ties, which are also pseudo-scientific, and the question was asked at that time when some were using these as references. Most who were asked why there were relying on these organizations refused to answer. End of story. Shall we move on?

Edited June 23, 2010 by Rosewin

[Vampwitchenstein]

No one was accused of that! It was a fair question to ask of those presenting data from places like FAIR or ALIPAC, which have extremist ties, which are also pseudo-scientific, and the question was asked at that time when some were using these as references. Most who were asked why there were relying on these organizations refused to answer. End of story. Shall we move on?

Apparently; No.

Heeyah, kitty!

[sam12six]

as it was useless when I stated a case that a family was wrongfully deported when trying to become legal...

That story was only proof that when you commit crimes, the consequences can be sad for your family.

some said that they were still commiting a crime and they didnt care that they were fighting for their residency for many years

come on!!!

What were they doing to fight for their residency? Granted they'd raised an anchor baby, but aside from that, what steps had they taken to legitimize themselves? Had they approached the authorities and tried? Nope.

You and Rosewin seem stuck on the fact that most illegals are here simply to work and find a better life for their families. Nobody has argued that this is false.

It doesn't matter.

Illegal immigration is um, what's the word? Oh yeah, illegal. Your motive doesn't matter. Whether you're a good person doesn't matter. What matters is you're draining the resources from a country (public services, making fewer jobs available to citizens of that country) and giving nothing back (income tax).

I have total sympathy with many of the illegals. I also have complete sympathy for a guy who shoots his child's rapist. Just because I feel them and would probably do the same thing in their shoes doesn't mean they should be immune from the consequences.

Unless and until they change the entire tax structure in the US, an open border policy simply won't work.

If (IF I say) you care about the citizens of this country having a tough time finding jobs or worse having plenty of jobs around that don't pay enough to make a living working, you should want the illegal immigration problem under control.

***Note - If I'm being racist and suggesting ethnic cleansing, let's make it clear I'm targeting people from Sierra Leone who sneak into this country. Anyone who only wants to see Mexicans get over at the expense of Americans need not take offense to my post.

[Junkers88]

***Note - If I'm being racist and suggesting ethnic cleansing, let's make it clear I'm targeting people from Sierra Leone who sneak into this country. Anyone who only wants to see Mexicans get over at the expense of Americans need not take offense to my post.

I laughed so hard at that that I almost peed!

(and no I don't have a link to "laughing until I almost peed" that supports that statement, so nobody needs to ask.)

[venqax]

I would remind posters to remain civil and post respectfully. There are two sides essentially here, "Yes, immigration is against the law and you can be arrested/deported for being here illegally" and those who disagree with that.

No intention of disrespect or provocation of the moderator. But what is the "other" of the 2 sides? If one says illegal immigration is against the law and you can be arrested/deported for being here illegally, how would the "disagreement" go, exactly? Some of the incivility may be a reflection of frustration not with the other side's argument, but it's lack of one. But be civil, I agree wholeheartedly.

Edited June 24, 2010 by venqax

[venqax]

You and Rosewin seem stuck on the fact that most illegals are here simply to work and find a better life for their families. Nobody has argued that this is false.

It doesn't matter.

Exactly. It doesn't matter. So why keep harping on it, like it is a defense of some kind? As for ethnic cleansing: That term refers to removing people from their traditional homes, like happened in Bosnia-- not to rounding up people who aren't supposed to be there to begin with and sendint them BACK to their traditional homes. That's just groundskeeping.

[ninjadude]

No intention of disrespect or provocation of the moderator. But what is the "other" of the 2 sides? If one says illegal immigration is against the law and you can be arrested/deported for being here illegally, how would the "disagreement" go, exactly?

I believe that you've apparently not understood Rosewin's clear statements. Rosewin agrees that illegal immigrants are illegal. That the border should be beefed up. Deportations are higher than any previous administration. But at the same time these people are working for American companies, paying taxes, and become part of society. Sometimes for many decades. Rosewin has argued that we bear some responsibility for that. That there should be some sort of amnesty. I think that's the jist of Rosewin's argument as I understood them.

The disagreement between you (and others) and Rosewin seem to be the responsibility and amnesty part. I would also argue that having American citizens as part of an illegal family is a very big issue as well. Economically it has been CLEARLY shown that we don't have the resources to deport all the illegal aliens in the US. It has also been CLEARLY shown that the economic impact of losing all the illegal aliens both from labor and consumption would cause more problems than it's worth. Logistically we CLEARLY don't have the money to do anything substantial with the border. We're spending all our wealth on Iraq and Afghanistan. So little will change. Except AZ will be pilloried and sued for racial profiling.

[venqax]

I believe that you've apparently not understood Rosewin's clear statements. Rosewin agrees that illegal immigrants are illegal. That the border should be beefed up. Deportations are higher than any previous administration. But at the same time these people are working for American companies, paying taxes, and become part of society. Sometimes for many decades. Rosewin has argued that we bear some responsibility for that. That there should be some sort of amnesty. I think that's the jist of Rosewin's argument as I understood them.

The disagreement between you (and others) and Rosewin seem to be the responsibility and amnesty part. I would also argue that having American citizens as part of an illegal family is a very big issue as well. Economically it has been CLEARLY shown that we don't have the resources to deport all the illegal aliens in the US. It has also been CLEARLY shown that the economic impact of losing all the illegal aliens both from labor and consumption would cause more problems than it's worth. Logistically we CLEARLY don't have the money to do anything substantial with the border. We're spending all our wealth on Iraq and Afghanistan. So little will change. Except AZ will be pilloried and sued for racial profiling.

My points were 2. One, the moderator wasn't accurately framing the arguments. And 2, Rose's "arguments" are nothing of the sort. They are just pleas to emotion. The "American citizens as part of an illegal family" arugment is easily dispensed with nonsense. The 14th Amd was never intended to bestow citizenship on anyone born in the US borders regardless of a lawless status. Because the courts, so far, don't have the spine to apply the law properly doesn't make it a an unsolvable problem, just a poliltically burdensome one. That said, there is no good evidence that the US economy would suffer substantially from the disappearance of illegal labor. Quite the opposite is better supported. And the attempts to blame every problem the US has-- budgetary, immigratory, and on and on-- on the wars that have been going on for a few year is just tired and lame. The wars are going to cost nothing compared to Obamacare and other entitlement programs that were breaking the bank long before 2001. Never bothered liberals before to spend more money than we have. What's the price tag on the Great Society in real dollars? $13 trillion or something? For nothing?

[Rosewin]

Unless and until they change the entire tax structure in the US, an open border policy simply won't work.

Agreed.

***Note - If I'm being racist and suggesting ethnic cleansing, let's make it clear I'm targeting people from Sierra Leone who sneak into this country. Anyone who only wants to see Mexicans get over at the expense of Americans need not take offense to my post.

Did you use any extremists websites to support your views? No, so there is no reason to assume anyone would consider you an extremist.

I backed off any claims that similar laws would lead to ethnic cleansing when HerNibs challenged my used of the term. Link here.

I have realized that is not going to happen and that under current demographic trends a new majority will emerge in this nation and we will all still be Americans.

I have backed off from such claims because it seems unlikely our federal government will allow such laws to be adopted on such a large scale in the first place anyways.

Anyone still bringing up ethnic cleansing is doing so all of their own and in no way does that characterize my position but theirs.

I laughed so hard at that that I almost peed!

Besides we all know who would win if extremists began attacking people....not them.

Our country is united against such backward yahooism and jingoism. That is right this is not about race. This is about good people versus extremism when it comes to that aspect and portion of the anti-immigration debate but on the other hand such extremist views do not totally characterize the anti-immigration debate. There are those who are able to present their anti-immigration debates without any links to extremism such as sam12six aimed for.

I too am laughing for some reason now.

I believe that you've apparently not understood Rosewin's clear statements. Rosewin agrees that illegal immigrants are illegal. That the border should be beefed up. Deportations are higher than any previous administration. But at the same time these people are working for American companies, paying taxes, and become part of society. Sometimes for many decades. Rosewin has argued that we bear some responsibility for that. That there should be some sort of amnesty. I think that's the jist of Rosewin's argument as I understood them.

The disagreement between you (and others) and Rosewin seem to be the responsibility and amnesty part. I would also argue that having American citizens as part of an illegal family is a very big issue as well. Economically it has been CLEARLY shown that we don't have the resources to deport all the illegal aliens in the US. It has also been CLEARLY shown that the economic impact of losing all the illegal aliens both from labor and consumption would cause more problems than it's worth. Logistically we CLEARLY don't have the money to do anything substantial with the border. We're spending all our wealth on Iraq and Afghanistan. So little will change. Except AZ will be pilloried and sued for racial profiling.

Exactly.

I fully support enforcement of the border. Why should anyone be allowed in just so they can be taken advantage of.

I fully support enforcement of laws that come down hard on companies for hiring unauthorized labor. Why should they be allowed to take advantage of others in that way?

I fully support immigration amnesty. Our society has a debt to all those it has taken advantage of since 1983.

I also celebrate this nation's diversity and understand that at the end of the day we are all simply just Americans and part of American society.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Rosewin

[ninjadude]

The 14th Amd was never intended to bestow citizenship on anyone born in the US borders regardless of a lawless status.

no one cares what it was "intended" to do. But what it CLEARLY says.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

no one cares what it was "intended" to do. But what it CLEARLY says.

Does this logic applies to the Second Amendment as well? I mean, regardless of what they intended, it does clearly say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Should I be able to have rocket launchers and machine guns?

[Agent X]

Ninjadude doesn't believe that individuals have the right to bear arms that you have to be part of the military in order to bear arms and anything else to the contrary is just NRA propaganda.

[ninjadude]

Does this logic applies to the Second Amendment as well? I mean, regardless of what they intended, it does clearly say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Should I be able to have rocket launchers and machine guns?

Yes. It says "a well regulated militia" which is something that is an anachronism in itself. Nothing about individuals. You NRA types seem to forget that part.

and yes I don't think individuals have a "right" to "bear arms" unless they are part of a "well regulated militia". They can have guns under other laws and regulations.

Edited June 26, 2010 by ninjadude

[Agent X]

And you have been proven wrong on this too, but that is a subject for another thread.

[+DieChecker]

Maybe if all the states pass similar laws, the we can simply build an expressway from Mexico to Canada? I'm sure Canada would accept 30 or 40 million illegals and not do anything about it.

The problem with gun restriction law in the US is that if you take the guns from the honest citizens, then how do you plan to get them from the criminals? Great now the criminals have guns and everyone else doesn't. Wonderful fix to the system. Not!!

[Junkers88]

I too am laughing for some reason now.

That's one of the best things about this topic, there is a lot to laugh at written here.

I fully support enforcement of the border. Why should anyone be allowed in just so they can be taken advantage of.

Indeed. Why should anyone be allowed in just so they can take advantage of this country?

Meh... circular argument that will really never get anywhere. Proponents on both sides have their views/ideals so locked down that they refuse to see an alternative point of view. Seems to me that we have extremists on both sides of the debate and only those of us in the middle can still use our heads to discuss things in a civil manner.

[Junkers88]

Maybe if all the states pass similar laws, the we can simply build an expressway from Mexico to Canada? I'm sure Canada would accept 30 or 40 million illegals and not do anything about it.

The problem with gun restriction law in the US is that if you take the guns from the honest citizens, then how do you plan to get them from the criminals? Great now the criminals have guns and everyone else doesn't. Wonderful fix to the system. Not!!

I'd rather not make an enemy of Canada..... that and the money for a highway would probably go a long way towards building a border fence. Heck I'd almost bet money that some crazy company out there could hire illegals to build the fence..... (sarcasm).

I'm not going to go into the gun aspect for a couple of reasons.

[ninjadude]

The problem with gun restriction law in the US is that if you take the guns from the honest citizens, then how do you plan to get them from the criminals? Great now the criminals have guns and everyone else doesn't. Wonderful fix to the system. Not!!

What does a private citizen having a gun have any demonstrable effect on criminals not having guns? Vigilantism is illegal. Shooting someone entering your home will get you arrested. Guns are naturally flowing from "honest" citizens to criminals all the time.

[Wickian]

Shooting someone entering your home will get you arrested.

This varies from state to state. Some states have a "your home is your castle" system where an uninvited intruder is at the homeowner's mercy in terms of what force he/she decides to use to remove you from his/her property. Other states only allow you to shoot a burglar if he/she has a deadly weapon or if you feel you or your family's life is in danger.

[+DieChecker]

What does a private citizen having a gun have any demonstrable effect on criminals not having guns?

None. Fact, it does provide Deterence.

Vigilantism is illegal. Shooting someone entering your home will get you arrested.

Wrong. Fact, self defense is not illegal.

Guns are naturally flowing from "honest" citizens to criminals all the time.

Wrong. Fact, most criminal guns are stolen or come from Mexico.

Can we get back to the topic of the Hispanics leaving Arizona? I think if we wait a year, and the law is left intact, that we will see a further drop in crime and a lessening of unemployment and a lessening of the financial burden on the state budget. But, we will have to wait and see. If such does happen, you can bet that several other states will follow suit.

[ninjadude]

I think if we wait a year, and the law is left intact, that we will see a further drop in crime and a lessening of unemployment and a lessening of the financial burden on the state budget.

in fact quite the opposite. Crime was and has been at it's lowest levels in AZ for years. Unemployment will be among the worst in the nation because of unfilled jobs of those leaving. The U of Phoenix already cannot fill jobs - via a national search. And the financial burden will be increased by the lack of people paying taxes. Their economy was already in shambles from previous foolish plans.

[venqax]

in fact quite the opposite. Crime was and has been at it's lowest levels in AZ for years. Unemployment will be among the worst in the nation because of unfilled jobs of those leaving. The U of Phoenix already cannot fill jobs - via a national search. And the financial burden will be increased by the lack of people paying taxes. Their economy was already in shambles from previous foolish plans.

The U of Phoenix? Is that an attempt at humor? And unemployment will be high because of unfilled jobs? How does that work?

[Indiogene]

I find it ironic (but not quite) for Hispanics/Latinos to relocate from the region where they lived in for centuries (in addition, for ages through American Indian ancestry) and close proximity to the nation of Mexico. Tejanos for example have lived on land for about 4 centuries, received other cultural influences from German, Polish and French immigrants via Louisiana, and later arrivals of Anglo-Americans from the southern US that produced the Texas Revolution for independence in the 1830's, in which Tejanos lost political power to the Anglos when Texas was admitted to statehood in 1845.

Here's a music vid. about Tejano music and Mexican-Americans, in particular the Tejano community of San Antonio and south Texas, produced by the local Spanish language radio station. As you can see, the Mexican-American culture is a major part of the diversity in this country and how Tejano music developed, grew and moved about the country (also to states of California and Arizona, and get this: New Mexico) in a fast pace. Note the term "Chicano" was a self-identify ethnic term for young urban Mexican-Americans during the civil rights era of the 1960's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_noAs6gdck

Edited July 18, 2010 by Archangel Michael

[Ignus Fatuus]

Therefore spread all the wealth around in all the many different states to the illegals.

Hope they all go to California!!!!

We cannot afford them here in Kentucky!!!!