The level of violence is almost unreal... must be terrifying.
Help me understand what is tearing families apart. Is there anything stopping people from crossing the border as frequently as they want? I understand it's gotta be inconvenient*, but it's not like it's new or anything.... that border has been there longer than most of the people crossing it have been alive.

I don't particularly want illegal aliens here either... it's not so much the 'undocumented workers' I have a problem with, it's the violent gang-bangers from mexico and central america that have no intention of being anything but a danger to the rest of us that really bug me... But at the same time, I think that if the border was actually secure I would have no problem offering amnesty to every illegal alien in the country that goes and gets signed up with Social Security immediately. But we can't have what's going on now, with the uncontrolled border and welfare state together. The math just doesn't work - see not enough $$ to train AZ cops properly etc.

*I just watched a show about a Canadian border town, border right down the middle of town, residents having to cross several times a day. Prior to 911 they just waved to Bob at the gate, now it's a whole thing with security everywhere. Pain in the ass but they seem to have a sense of humor about it, on both sides.

Yeah, I remember a roadblock checking for illegals when we left San Diego years ago, heading north. Had to be almost 20 years ago now...

it is certainly much harder now, and more harrowing to travel--in Juarez, not here. There's a lot of movement around, as people are moving their families here, or moving some of them around from outlying areas, like Fort Hancock. Certainly the violence has puts a toll on families and caused untold suffering and separations, but I'm thinking more in terms of families where the parents are here and are the breadwinners, but illegal, but their children were born here. The kids are citizens--what should they do when the parents are arrested and deported? I'm sure there are other scenarios, and I suppose some of you will simply say, well, they weren't supposed to be here at all, send them and their kids back. But back into a war zone?

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't agree that these people don't have rights, or that we should just dismiss them without considering the human viewpoint.

No.
link

The bottom line is that until we find a sensible alternative to the drug war we won't have a reasonable chance of resolving the illegal immigration issue.

Quoted for truth.

I'd love to hear one.
Personally, I'd like to see home-grown drugs (specifically pot, no one should be dying or going to jail over pot) controls relaxed, freeing up money to spend on stopping the imported poison. Asking nicely won't work unfortunately.

The various wars in central america have sent us millions of people, many trained guerilla fighters with no other skills. What are we supposed to do about this?

Well since they are already trained, let's give them teaching credentials and set them up in our inner city schools.
It might improve test scores.

Har.

no one likes to think their friends and cow orkers are insensitive bigots.

I'm disappointed.

who's an insensitive bigot now?

others.

Yeah, I hate others. jerks.

Cite.

Cite.

Those Damm employees. Fire those workers now and end this disparity!

Some Hispanic Americans hope law deters illegal immigration
 

The plural of anecdote is not statistics.

Statistics lie.

So do people.

To roughly quote Mark Twain:

"There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics."

By the way, they rewrote the law, for Jinx.;)

Yeah, hopefully its clear enough that even CNN and redux's lawyer can understand it now.

I dont know that it clarifies much.

The underlying crime is now a new state crime of being in the country w/o documentation.

The Constitutional questions remain.

Can a state enact a law that makes being in the country illegally a state crime OR is that solely a federal government responsibility and thus, can only be a federal crime.

As Merc pointed out, the Constitutional specifically identifies "standard rules of naturalization" as a power of Congress. It is not one of those powers that is ceded to the states.

And then you have the 4th amendment search and seizure issue and the 14th amendment due process and equal protection issues....all of which depends on the interpretation of "reasonable cause" or "suspicion" which is still undefined.

I dont know the answers, but I think it needs to be answered by the federal courts.

Yeah, ok, whatever. I don't think it's that complicated.

When it is that controversial in terms of its legal merits, why not let the federal courts decide?

What is so controversial about the legal merits?
Illegal aliens can be legally approached "contacted" by law enforcement for the all same reasons as everyone else. If they want special treatment in that regard they can go fuck themselves repeatedly.
There's nothing controversial on it's face, the controversy comes in because some people disagree with immigration law period.
So take your fight there. You want open borders? Tell us why.

I never said I want open borders. I want laws that meet Constitutional standards and are legally enforceable.

The most interesting legal issue is if the state can make illegal immigration a state crime, which is what the law does. Or is the crime of illegal immigration solely a federal prerogative as identified in the Constitution as a power of Congress.

And whether it is controversial to you or not, and whether you or I disagree on the legal merits, it is controversial to many attorneys, law enforcement officials, local government officials and others.

That is why we have a federal judiciary. If the courts determine it is legal, I might not like it, but I will accept it.

All of whom have a great deal at stake and not just financially.

All of them?

Many legal experts who have expressed concern about the law have only the Constitution in mind. Many local elected officials and police chiefs in AZ are concerned about liability exposure since there is no clear standard of what constitutes "reasonable cause" or "suspicious behavior."

You can ignore the legal issues and attempt to make it all about politics and money. As convenient as it might be to deflect the argument away from the legal questions, that in itself is acting politically.

I honestly dont understand what is so wrong with having the federal judiciary determine the constitutionality of the AZ law (or any law where there are controversial legal questions). Perhaps you can explain why that would be so bad.

As an aside:
While not pointing any fingers here, its funny how many conservatives are all gung ho about questioning the constitutionality of a federal law they dont like (health reform) but for some reason, have a problem with others questioning the constitutionality of a state law that those conservatives like.

You answered that yourself, federal and state.

How so?

The core issue, putting aside the 4th and 14th amendment issues, is whether a state can make a law that the Constitution says is solely the prerogative of Congress....and there is something called the Supremacy Clause as well which often comes into play when determining the constitutionality of state laws.

If illegal immigration can only be a federal crime, then it raises question about a state law that makes illegal immigration a state crime.

I am not suggestion that it applies in this case. I dont know, but some constitutional experts believe it does apply and I think it is a legitimate question. The federal judiciary should make that determination.

You asked what is bothering conservatives. I told you. I'm not defending their position.

Ah...I get it now.

They are big on states rights....until a state legislates in a manner they dont like. Then they wave the Constitution.

That's bullshit political correctness. Just because the law says you can't racially profile doesn't mean it won't happen any more than laws against unethical behavior by our legislators work. You'd think people could understand that.

Conservatives believe that the person closest to the decision should have the job of making the decision. Unless that person is deciding what gender to marry or whether to have an abortion. Then it's the conservatives' job to make the decision.

You know why the American government didn't put German immigrants into internment camps like they did for the Japanese immigrants during WWII? Because there were just too dang many of them. If you had walked down an urban street in the southwest recently, you would realize that if the police were using nothing but skin color to determine suspicion, they'd never finish the job.

If this law had been enacted in Ohio, then I'd say yes, there would absolutely be racial profiling going on. Down here, Hispanics are like 30% of the population. Too many to profile on any meaningful generalized level.

I'm wondering why some of you seem to WANT to be upset by this. And why it is the 'Liberals' that seem to have the biggest objections.

How is this a Liberal vs Conservative issue at all? is it just habit?

sure they do. :rolleyes:

First off, I am not ignoring the legal issues. Secondly, everything about this is political. If you don't think it is, you are sadly mistaken or ...
Something needs to be done. Arizona has asked the current and past administrations for help. They ignored them. Now they are doing something to solve the problem. That's a good thing. Is it constitutional - dunno, thats for the lawyers to decide. Either way, it certainly has brought the illegal immigration to the forefront.

Where did I say it would? You're very good at wording your comments, much like a politician, where claims are put onto another person/poster when they weren't made by that person/poster.

As an aside:
While not pointing any fingers here, [/quote]
Pulease

To quote you - That's bullshit.:eyebrow:

VOTES which equals power and control.

Liberals fear the police state as conservatives fear the regulatory state, that is the habit part. Politically, this is just Republicans pandering to their base, once again tying to make the liberals look anti-American while at the same time getting the jump on the Democrat's up-coming Federal immigration legislation. The racist part is mostly to get liberals upset enough to vote, but there is a core group of racists in the Republican party who will be soothed by a States Rights push that will only impact brown people, if you ignore the budget blowing incarceration aspect of the thing.

How much more dangerous does this make the policeman's job? Traffic stops become high stakes situations.

Pulease

Do you ever give politicians credit for acting altruistically? Or in this case, legal experts with nothing to gain.

I certainly have never seen it.

This is a good place to start. Stiff pot taxes could pay for a lot of anti-chemical programming.

See? It's all Bush's fault! :lol2:

You really don't think that's true? Think about it....

I would also suggest to Classic that he rethink his assertion that ALL of those legal experts, local officials, police chiefs, etc. who have expressed concern about the law have done so for political or financial reasons.

Is it possibly, in your mind, for someone to want immigration law enforced and not be a racist?
Is is possible to believe that illegal immigration is a problem, moreso for some areas than others, and that legislating law enforcement tools to deal with it is an attempt at reducing the problem, and not simple pandering?

They already are, and not just in AZ.

Yes like over population. This video about the immigration problem, as far as over population goes, and sustainability was made in 1996. It is sure to piss some people off.

Watched it yesterday after following someones link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

Yes.
Yes, it is a regional problem, but this legislation looks to be mostly pandering. It is like the banking thing, the Democrats are not addressing the core problem by breaking up the too big to fail banks, but they are attempting to solve some of the problems.
...which brings us back to the drug war and the Mexican economy, the real problems.

As far as Arizona and Texas along with other boarder states it is a regional problem because of the drug wars. In my state the Hispanic population is 10%. When I was young these were mainly migrant farm workers but now there is established neighborhoods. People are hardworking and this area is pretty liberal but the lenient welcoming attitude would change if the drug cartels keep pushing their way in further into the country.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Why should we be different than any other country when protecting itself? Why does this have to be a race issue? Where are the rights of the people to live without fear?

immigration is not a problem because of the drug wars. Immigration has always been a problem; even legal immigration has been a contentious issue in our history. Problems with illegal aliens have existed since the borders were established. The current crisis is exacerbated by the drug wars, but the problem has existed and will exist, "drug wars" or not.

My problem with it is that no matter what is done at the border, human intelligence will circumvent those "secure the border" measures if there is a strong economic or social incentive. As long as we foster a black market, we will have people isolated from the wider society who will clan up and remain outside the law. Does the law in Arizona make us more or less free? Does it make us more or less safe? I think it makes us less free and less safe to abandon an open culture.

I was actually thinking of all the other reasons that make traffic stops a scary situation...
But if the real problem is the mexican economy, what legislation do the republicans need to pass to solve or at least address it? Instead of pandering I mean.

Especially if there is no way to detect illegals and no consequences for being one.

What? How?

I respect your point but I see it as a philosophical one; one that we as a country already adhere to. Immigration reform with the express purpose of tamping down criminal activity does not, in my opinion, take precedence over our basic principles as a country.

@ cloud. I agree with you.

We have a flexible dynamic economy, which takes advantage of a free flow of ideas and people. If we shut down immigration we stifle that dynamism. We know we have a screwed up education system in this country, which often trains kids for jobs that don't exist. If Mexico, India, or Canada is accidentally educating people who fill positions our kids don't, we need to take advantage of that to remain a flexible economy. I see immigration controls as largely fear drive. That fear is reasonable when related to the violent drug culture, but not reasonable if it thinks we can't absorb productive immigrants.

As far as what Republicans (but lets say everyone) need to do,.. On our side of the fence we shrink the market for illegal drugs. On the other side of the fence we use our considerable economic/political influence to support rule of law and market reforms in Mexico.

Who said anything about shutting down immigration? Securing our borders doesn't mean closing them.

Securing our borders is a kind of magical empty phrase, so I assign it this meaning: militarizing the border, bureaucratizing travel in and out of the country, reducing flexibility, and creating barriers of intimidation, fear, and frustration. Productive immigrants often seek to escape that which we propose to inflict upon ourselves.

The AZ law doesn't even try to shut down immigration. It just makes what's already illegal under federal law illegal under state law.

I agree on principal, that's why we DO allow immigration. But first and foremost, these jobs need to be filled by legal residents.

Agreed. Productive legal immigrants that pay income tax anyway... Btw, how's the economy over there in CA these days?

Pfizer is trying...

But your assigned meaning is so extreme, I doubt if you could find more than a handful of people to endorse implementing it.

I agree with Griff here. We don't actually have an immigration problem. Rejiggering our immigration rules and their enforcement will not answer to the trouble we're having.

The problem is in Mexico and I think it can only be solved there: Mexico does not have a middle class visible to the naked eye. To achieve a bootstrapping up from dismal poverty to the lower middle class, the Méxicanos have to travel al Norte. Some carry this all the way to Canada's cities and towns.

Which is likely to improve the quality of Mexican restaurants throughout the continent.

The historical source of Mexico's lack of a middle class and its opportunities is easy enough to see: unlike the US and Canada, Mexican Spanish immigration -- and it was at first exclusively so -- was not a flood of smallholders, each with his stake in the enterprise. It was a sparse settlement of primarily the aristocratic landowning class and their retainers, recreating the only economy they knew: the latifundian economy of Spanish landowners and Spanish peasants. Thus they created it and thus it remained. All over the place and for centuries.

So, the 1960s joke had it that Latin America resembles an LP record -- 33 1/3 revolutions per minute. The twentieth century was when it all came to a head, building on some brawling begun in the nineteenth. Every bit of it over resources, at bottom.

So, short of revolution and raping real estate away from people who used to have it, and rationing it out to people who used not to have it, what? Well, an organic, viral answer was to export labor. Population too. Guess who's importing.

Eleven percent unemployment statewide.

Yeah, we've been Mexico's safety valve, giving the peasants one more option before boiling over and actually fixing their country.

So your point is moot.

:notworthy