What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Redux

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

What information do you have to support this premise?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

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..."

Just my opinion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

What information do you have to support this premise?

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.

[lookout123]

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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

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

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?

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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.

[Shawnee123]

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?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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?

Not at all - WTF are you talking about?

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

[classicman]

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).

Originally Posted by classicman

Lets review. The feds didn't uphold their responsibilities in AZ and elsewhere. AZ asked them repeatedly to do so. AZ was ignored repeatedly....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.

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:

In 2007, discretionary spending on border security was $6.3 billion. As Pence noted, that was the last year of full Republican control. After that, while George W. Bush remained in the presidency, Congress was controlled by Democrats. But discretionary spending on border security continued to rise year after year. It went to $7.9 billion in 2008; to $9.8 billion in 2009; and to $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2010. President Barack Obama's proposed 2011 budget calls for a slight decrease in discretionary spending on border security, but even at the proposed level of $9.8 billion, that's a 55 percent increase between 2007 and 2011.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gal-immigrati/

But they havent responded to AZ's concerns?

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

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.

Illegal immigrants are paying taxes to Uncle Sam, experts agree. Just how much they pay is hard to determine because the federal government doesn't fully tally it. But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year.

The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...ntstaxes_N.htm

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.

[Shawnee123]

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

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

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

Like the muddy Rio Grande River?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

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

Originally Posted by classicman

Not at all - WTF are you talking about?

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...

Originally Posted by classicman

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

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?