It is a fallacy to believe that every state legislator or member of Congress or state/federal executive branch officials read every piece of legislation.

That is why they have staff...that is why there are committee structures and recognized experts in both parties who lead the initiatives and brief fellow party members on the details of legislation.

For any piece of legislation, state or federal, there are probably only handful of people who have actually read the bill...and that would most likely be the staff who wrote it.

I would bet very few of the AZ legislators in either party read the legislation. It is simply not how governing bodies work. In fact, it is not how most organizations work.

And it doesnt apply just to legislation. Do you think a president should read every intel report cover-to-cover before making a decision....or rely on detailed briefings/recommendations from staff (the director of national intelligence)?

In the private sector, do you think a CEO reads every report/recommendation directed to his/her attention? Delegation and division of labor recognizing particular expertise within the structure is the manner in which good organizations work most effectively.

added:
And in the legislative process, most bill amend existing laws and cant simply be read free-standing.

The AZ bill may only be ten pages, but this is is at the heart of it.

AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8;

AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 13-1509;

AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES;

AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND 13-2929;

AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES;

AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS.

Reading a bill is not like reading a book or a magazine article.

To fully understand it, one would have to read it in the context of all these existing statutes or sections of the state code that the bill amends at the same time as one reads the legislation.

I can guarantee that very few legislators read it in such a manner.

You may think it is pathetic. I think it is representative of good organizational management.

Then they shouldn't comment on what it says if they do not understand it.
AND THEY ADMIT that all they knew was what they heard/saw from the press.
That is NOT representative of good organizational management.

It is possible that they do understand it, without having read it.

Yes, it is. Delegation is key to good management. Nobody can do everything themselves. Having aides read the bill and give a synopsis to the legislator is a valid management tool.

How could they possibly understand the specifics without reading it - GTFO

One of them admitted all he new was what he saw, read on tv - I think it was Holder. Sorry - thats not where I want my representatives forming their opinions. If they don't know, just admit it and say "I don't know." or "I haven't read it yet"

Intelligent, trusted aides read it and 'splained it to them.

One of them admitted all he new was what he saw, read on tv
Do you keep missing that or are you just choosing not to read it because he is one of the guys on "your team"

Calm down. I'm ignoring it because I don't dispute this particular point in your argument. K?

k

The whole thing will be more effective if we can get NM and Texas to adopt the same bills in their states. That would be most awesome.

I disagree completely.
The Fed should uphold its responsibilities and not put a state into this situation in the first place.

Considering that they have failed in that department for so many years now, I think it would be a good idea for the states to take action as they independently are allowed to do. I think it would be a great idea, the sooner the better.

Obama to Send 1,200 Guard Troops to Mexico Border
Link

Yes it did - It was the message known as Arizona Senate Bill 1070.

Wait...who was Marvin Steamroller again???

Despite all the rhetoric from the right, Obama has increased funding for border enforcement significantly in his first two budget requests...and the Democratic Congress has increased funding every year since they took control.

And despite all the rhetoric, enforcement efforts and deportations have also increased.

But neither of the above facts have prevented misrepresentations by the AZ law supporters.

And, in the opinion of many, it still doesnt make the AZ law good public policy...as well as the unsettled question of the constitutionality of the law.

We already had that argument - just look back a few pages if you aren't too lazy.
Reality is that the administration is now taking action and thats a good thing. Their lawyers have probably already figured out its constitutionally sound, whether you like it or not. They've had plenty of time to figure it out.
When left with no choice, they are finally doing what they should have done all along. Bravo Arizona!

As I pointed out, the reality is that the administration started taking action 18 months ago, having done more than the previous administration, in terms of both annual spending on border enforcement and numbers of deportations.

And despite the fear rhetoric, there has been no increase in border-related crime in recent years.

As to the constitutionality of the law, I'm curious for the basis of your suggestion that "their lawyers have probably already figured out its constitutionally sound..."

Particularly given that the DoJ team of constitutional attorneys reviewing the law have reportedly prepared a report for Holder recommending that the govt. challenge the law in federal court. At the same time, DoJ's Civil Rights Division reportedly has drafted a "civil complaint" that would be filed in federal court.

The DoJ is doing what it should do...taking the time to review the law at various internal levels before they proceed or make a final determination.

But in any case, it is the federal judiciary, not the executive branch, will make that determination (civics 101, dude)... with two or three cases already filed....whether any of us like or not.

What information do you have to support this premise?

Just my opinion.
Too bad Holder and the others couldn't take your advice and say they didn't know or would rather wait until they reviewed it before making accusations and comments based upon the media. They are the ones who made determinations without having read the bill or knowing all the facts.

Getting all snarky again - lol. This is a perfect example of why nothing gets accomplished quickly or economically in your business. All the endless circular arguments, deflections and distractions.

Lets review. The feds didn't uphold their responsibilities in AZ and elsewhere. AZ asked them repeatedly to do so. AZ was ignored repeatedly. After months. perhaps years, of no reply. AZ says fine we'll do it ourselves. AZ models a law to match that of the Fed statutes that the Feds aren't enforcing. Fed has egg on face and is embarrassed. Feds take action based upon what AZ was asking for initially.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports

Here is just one comparison for AZ:

2006: 30,916 violent crimes - rate of 501 per 100,000 residents
2007: 30,600 violent crimes - rate of 482 per 100,000 residents
2008: 29,050 violent crimes - rate of 447 per 100,000 residents.

Go back additional years for further comparisons....The full 2009 data is not out.

Yet we hear from many proponents of the law (including the governor of AZ, Sen McCain, etc) about a dangerous upswing in violent crime due to illegal immigrants and Mexican druggies.

From preliminary 2009 data by region.....violent crime down in every category in the West (and every region)

So where is this dangerous upswing in violent crime?

And to Classic.... you can ignore the budget data, the deportation data and the crime data...and you can distort what Holder and Napaltano said.

And you can make assumptions and suggestions that ALL of the constitutional experts, local elected officials and law enforcement officials who have expressed concern about the constitutionality and/or enforceability of the law are acting out of political or financial interests...it doesnt make it true.

As to the constitutionality, the courts will decide....and that is fine with me.

I haven't gone through that line by line but that looks like it is looking at the state as a whole rather than border counties/cities versus those further from the border. Maybe your data still supports what you are saying, but I don't know that it necessarily does.

One of the things that has been talked about quite a bit down here is that the crime rate in the metro areas has gone down significantly at the same time as more and more of my fellow arizonans are becoming fulltime firearm carriers. The debate has been whether that is cause/effect or just coincidental. At the same time we've heard from the sherriffs in border counties that they are significantly more active now.

I don't have any hard data for that, I was just curious if you did since you seemed so sure in your premise.

There is hard data on a county-basis in Crime in Arizona reports.

I didnt compare all border counties, but violent crime was down in 2008 (from 2007) in Cochise, Pima and Yuma Counties.

On a more anecdotal level, I have seen numerous articles on border crime...with the law enforcement officials consistently saying violent crime is down or at worst, flat.

One example: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...ce-mexico.html

I have not seen any hard data anywhere that crime is up in border cities or across the state.

IMO, the so-called rise in illegal immigrant crime factor has been overstated and overplayed for political gain.

Uh-oh. That's gonna incur some costs. Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Is your head about to explode?

Maybe they can watch the border 2 days per week and for the other three during the week, they can head on over to the gulf and do some oil clean-up.

If they really wanted to multi-task and save money, they could do both. Do you have ANY idea how many ferners are sneaking over here disguised as oil spills?

Not at all - WTF are you talking about?

Does it just come naturally or do you have to try?

I think the issue is more than just crime statistics. The costs in other areas is also choking the system. Prisons, healthcare, education...



There is also a piece on it here from
CBS News

I didnt expect you to acknowledge that many of the proponents of the AZ law, including the governor, have grossly misrepresented the crime factor (unless you dont accept FBI and AZ stats because it is govt data).

Sure...lets review.

You refuse to accept or acknowledge that funding for border security this year is significantly higher than the last Bush/Republican Congress appropriations and not something that Obama did in reaction to the AZ law:
But they havent responded to AZ's concerns?

Or that the number of deportations was higher last year than any previous year:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/201...igchart560.jpg

Is this not a demonstration of a response to AZ's concerns?

So, now its the cost issue...which by most independent studies is grossly overstated.

Particularly when you factor in the taxes paid by illegal immigrants -- according to the Social Security Administration, illegal immigrants pay $billions in FICA taxes and will never collect -- and many pay income taxes (in order to have a paper trail to get home loans) and all of them pay state/local sales taxes.

And then there is the $billions in additional revenue that would be generated by providing a path to citizenship....not amnesty, as it is falsely characterized, but a process, including paying fines and taxes, waiting periods, etc.

Quit muddying the waters with facts, will you? Hmmmph.

:bolt:

Like the muddy Rio Grande River? ;)

Shouldn't they enforce existing laws before they enact new regulation?

You espouse spending additional money to stop illegal immigration, yet you condemn spending money. You can't have it both ways. Shel and Shaw understood...

Many things come naturally for me, like understanding and complex reasoning. Other things I try to do, like getting you to understand elementary concepts. Are we done being snide? :p:

They're not wet backs, they're mud backs! :eek::D

Mushy brains are a Mexican delicacy.

http://blog.ratestogo.com/wp-content...beef-brain.jpg

As you can probably imagine, brains tend to have a texture that likens to mush, but they really don’t taste bad at all. They’re actually almost flavorless, so most of the taste comes from the sauce in which the brains are prepared.
http://blog.ratestogo.com/disgusting...ies-of-mexico/

But "real" Americans prefer rocky mountain oysters. :eek:

How much of that help went to AZ? Your statistics are for the entire US not AZ specifically.

It isn't nor has it ever been any ONE issue.


Excellent! And let us now relate that to the costs associated with these criminals.. .. .. I'll wait.

Yup - they asked and were refused for years.
lol Shel and shaw? Are you serious?
I condemn wasteful spending - always have and will. The rest is yet another figment of your overactive imagination.
Apparently not - When you act like an a-hole, you can count on me to let you know - every time?

Fuck you and your overblown sense of yourself.

Shel, did you get that? We're laughable. We must be stupid. Did you know that? I didn't.

Jesus, class, I knew you were an ass but I didn't think you thought you were better than everyone else.

Now excuse me while I go pick my nose and grunt and fling poo at my cow orkers. You interrupted that process by uttering my name.

I love how some draw conclusions based upon their names being mentioned. your boy spexxie brought you up - not me.
I merely referred to the fact that you and he agreed with his stance. That has been blatantly obvious.

Your intelligence or lack thereof (your choice) was never part of the discussion.
Nor did I ever say that I was "better than everyone else" as you said.

Sorry to interrupt your nosepicking/pooflinging - Have a blessed day.

Have fun stormin' the castle!

There is little direct evidence that illegal aliens pay billions in taxes. We do have direct evidence that they are choking our social systems on the border. Anyone who has lived near the border can clearly attest to this.

An increase in deportations is directly related to increase in border crossings, much of them being funneled due to building of the high tech border fence in Southern Calif.

Now lets look at the facts surrounding the stress on our social systems.

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?pag...s_iv_ctrl=1901

Bottom line is that the contributions in monetary gain by illegal immigrants in now way covers the costs to the individual states. We have had to many years of Administration after Administration ignoring the issue. Good on AZ for having the guts to do something about it.

Link
Link
We can use some of that money instead.

Link

Classic, stop using all those ugly facts to make your point! You are making way to much sense. :lol:

There is very strong evidence that illegal immigrants contribute significantly to the Social Security "earnings suspense" fund....the funds from received from "bad" social security numbers.

The fund now totals more than $50 billion....the SS Administrator estimates that $5-8 billion/year is from illegal immigrants with false SS card.

You can quibble with the number...$5 billion or $8 billion...but $billions/year is a fact.

FBI/AZ crime stats are facts....increasing budget appropriations are facts....higher deportation numbers are facts.

Just not facts you guys want to hear.

Who or what is laughable?

Every time I read one of classic's response posts that deny or twist or ignore facts that challenge his opinion...I laugh.

Now this is laughable:

You have a perspective that is very different than mine. Thats one of the things I love about interacting here. The diversity.

Classic...your "interactions" consistently demonstrate utter contempt for any posts that challenge yours....and you love the diversity?

You and Merc can carry on now. You two deserve each other.

ps....keep sending Merc those links of yours....you will have a receptive audience who wont challenge you at all.

And you ignore and post onward when all the FACTS just posted don't agree with your opinions.

I am well aware that I am in the minority on this board. That doesn't make my points/facts nor opinions any more or less true/relevant or valid.

Congrats - another masterful job of taking something and reposting it out of context.
I'm sure that your minions will be thrilled - you might even get a haggis or two.

I understand that you cant see things as they really are...perhaps because you are not the brightest bulb in the cellar.

Turn on the light, dude!

Oh yay!!! It's The Fucking Asshole Show!!!

I haven't seen this in DAYS!

Nice - said like a true politician.

We're still waiting for you to add up the costs of the criminal immigrants.
C'mon Mr. statistic - where are your numbers?
What are the costs to the AZ society in terms of infrastructure, education, health care and so on?
After you get that we can compare the two.

It should be pay-per-view.

But I'm done. :)

Now you can't tell the difference between understood and agreed.

semantics

Great, post your source....


Yep, all related to an increase in illegals breaking the law by the very fact they are here. Increased budget appropriations for the border war occurred years before your Socialist came to office...

Why yes you are! and you failed again! Well done Demoncratic Shrill!!!!!!!:3eye:

Always happy to provide a source, despite the fact that you rarely if ever respond in kind, when requested. Instead, you demand that others asking you for a source must "prove you wrong"

Just saying :)

How about sworn testimony of the Deputy Commissioner of Social Security:

The suspense file has continued to grow since this testimony four ago....at a higher rate than the $7 billion/year

Testimony is not a factual statistic, sorry fail again Demoncratic Shrill....

Testimony?

To further clarify, it is my understanding that governnment data is not accceptable to either of you as well, since you view such data as "propoganda, biased or unreliable"....unless, of course, that government data supports your position, in which case it is acceptable.

:rolleyes:

It's getting harder and harder for anyone to believe it is "just coincidental." It has been the uniform experience of each and every state that has liberalized concealed carry of weapons (CCW for short).

(And the one reason Spexxvet can survive while hysterically not packing heat is because others can do it for him, and in his place.)

Now you are just being an "argumentative asshole" if I could use your words.

Of course, there is a cost to AZ directly related to illegal immigrants. I have never suggested otherwise. I did say, IMO, the cost reported from some sources is over-inflated and that it is factually incorrect to say that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.

I have provided data that crime is down statewide and in border cities/counties.

I have provided data that federal expenditures on border security have increased significantly in the last 3-5 years.

And I have provided data that deportations have risen proportionately at the same time.

In fact, according to DHS/Customs data, the number of illegal immigrants currently in the country is at its lowest point in the last 10 years...having peaked in 2007.

IMO, when the governor of AZ describes the current illegal immigration problem in AZ as responsible for "murder, terror and mayhem" and the federal government is "not responding"....I would suggest she is politicizing the problem as much as anyone.

And that means politicizing the issue as much or more than those law enforcement officials in AZ and elsewhere who have expressed concern over the law and who you say are ALL acting for political or financial reasons.

Another fact check

added:
I am not for open borders, as you or others have suggested. I am not for illegal immigrants having more rights than citizens, as you or others have suggested.

IMO, the only way to address the issue is to have comprehensive reform that provides more effective border security (not wasting money on a symbolic fence) AND a pathway to citizenship for most of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country....NOT amnesty as it is mischaracterized for political purposes....but a process where they register, go to the back of the line, have a background check, pay taxes and fines, learn english, etc.

First time you have made that admission. Thanks.
I never said they didn't.
You actually stated that Obama had done more than Bush. You are now altering your story to say 3-5 years.
No disagreement on this timeframe.
Which is directly related to the economic downturn.
Add this - Take my posts and direct your response to me -
Take other people's posts and direct your responses to them.
Aside from your fence point (I'd prefer a well constructed wall with checkpoints and medical facilities on the Mexican side) I mostly agree - its in the details of how to accomplish this. Additionally, the problem with anything that is seen as "Amnesty" or preferential treatment for the criminals already here is that creates a rush on the borders. Well that and the still lingering question of Who are these 12 million and which ones do we want to allow to stay?
I see no other way to control immigration without actually controlling it. Without a wall/fence or some other means, there is no way.

It would be a pleasant surprise if you could acknowledge any of the data I provided rather than twist what I post or nitpick it or ignore data that you dont like. Somehow, you are never wrong....or never willing to acknowledge the shortcomings in your own posts.

And for the record, I provide cites when requested...certainly more than you or most others.

Finally, it would pleasant surprise if you could even consider the fact that the supporters of the law have politicized the issue as much as anyone. Somehow, from your perspective, its all on one side...ALL those who have issues with the law have political or financial interests.

Then, I might believe you are interested in an honest discussion.

????? I acknowledge that you provided data.
?????????? Really? I wish.
Again lumping people together - I post cites as often, if not more than anyone. Is there somewhere I didn't post a cite that you need?
WTF are you talking about?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

ETA - way to take another post out of context again. I let it go because you made some cogent rational points, but immediately after I reply you attack and get all snarky again. Probably is better we do not communicate anymore.

Somethings never change......you are always the victim.

You never twist others post...but yours are take out of context.

Cry me a river, dude, and put me on ignore.

But when I see bullshit and narrow minded generalizations, I will respond.