What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

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.

[classicman]

Of course, there is a cost to AZ directly related to illegal immigrants.

First time you have made that admission. Thanks.

it is factually incorrect to say that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.

I never said they didn't.

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

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.

...the number of illegal immigrants currently in the country is at its lowest point in the last 10 years...having peaked in 2007.

Which is directly related to the economic downturn.

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.

Add this - Take my posts and direct your response to me -
Take other people's posts and direct your responses to them.

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.

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

It would be a pleasant surprise if you could acknowledge any of the data I provided...

????? I acknowledge that you provided data.

...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.

????? Really? I wish.

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

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?

Finally, it would pleasant surprise if you could even consider the fact that EVERYONE has politicized the issue. Then, I might believe you are interested in an honest discussion.

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.

[classicman]

Was the bullshit part the part where I agreed with you?
Oh wait - that was simply your way of admitting that you, in fact, took my post out of context intentionally and therefore its ok because other people do/did it.

[classicman]

From redux's link:

"Violence is on the Mexican side, like it's breathing on us," said Estrada, whose county has 50 miles of border with Mexico. "But the [Santa Cruz] county is very safe as a whole. If there's any violence here, it's in the rural areas and canyons… There are probably a lot of things going on we're not aware of."

President Obama, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to Face Off Over Immigration at White House

The administration and Congress have been at loggerheads over comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would enhance security along U.S. borders and address the situation of an estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. Arizona is home to an estimated 460,000 of those immigrants.

Meanwhile, the administration is weighing a legal challenge to Arizona's law on grounds it may impede federal authority to set and enforce national immigration policy and could lead to abuses based on race.

Although the law specifically states that law enforcement officers may not consider race, color or national origin as a basis for inquiring about an individual's immigration status, Latinos and civil rights groups worry the potential for racial profiling is still there.

Link
As an aside... What law doesn't have the potential to be discriminatory? You have humans enforcing them.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer says she and President Barack Obama have agreed to try to work together on a solution to the nation's immigration and border security woes.

Brewer also says Obama assured her that most of the 1,200 National Guard troops he is sending to the southern border will be coming to her state. Brewer recently signed a tough new immigration enforcement law that requires police to check people's immigration status.

Obama has denounced the law as discriminatory.

Brewer spoke Thursday after a half-hour meeting with Obama in the Oval Office.

Read more:

That was less than informative.

Originally Posted by classicman

As an aside... What law doesn't have the potential to be discriminatory? You have humans enforcing them.

Please point to any other law where citizens (not illegals) of one race or ethnicity are far more likely to be subject to being "questioned" about their immigration status than other races, when not in custody for questioning about any other crime.

Again, I am not talking about illegals, but citizens and legal residents who happen to be Hispanic and who will be faced with the potential prospect of be subjected to more scrutiny to determine if they broke the state law of being in the country illegally based solely on undefined "suspicious" behavior.

BTW...I did get a good laugh out of your signature: Support America-Support Arizona

Supporting America means supporting the Arizona law?

Does that mean those who have concerns about the AZ law are UnAmerican or somehow not supporting America?

Damn... and I thought supporting America means supporting the right to dissent.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Redux

Please point to any other law where citizens (not illegals) of one race or ethnicity are far more likely to be subject to being "questioned" about their immigration status than other races, when not in custody for questioning about any other crime.

This is about geography, not discrimination.
What if NY passed the same law, written exactly the same way?

Originally Posted by jinx

This is about geography, not discrimination.
What if NY passed the same law, written exactly the same way?

IMO, and the opinion of many legal experts, this law has a greater potential adverse impact on Hispanic citizens and legal residents than other races. That makes it discriminatory. Others disagree, I get that.

Again, that is why the courts should decide.

Particularly, when the law only requires "reasonable suspicion" and does not prohibit considering race as a factor. It only says race cannot be the sole factor for determining reasonable suspicion. When race is A factor (not the sole factor), it borders or crosses the line of being discriminatory.

If you are a Hispanic citizen or legal resident of AZ, you are more likely to face "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant and in violation of the state law than Anglos, Blacks, Asians.....I honestly dont see how objective observers can suggest otherwise.

IMO, there would be much less concern with the law being potentially discriminatory if it relied on "probable cause" (a greater burden of proof) rather than "reasonable suspicion".

added:
In case I wasnt clear enough about your NY comparison......any law in any state that uses a standard of "reasonable suspicion" and allows race to be a determining factor in that suspicion (just not the sole factor) raises serious legal questions of being discriminatory.

[classicman]

(a) Every law enforcement agency shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

[classicman]

You are such a hypocrite - You choose to support a boycott and I choose to support the state.

Any law - traffic laws - anything where the police have to use their discretion could be construed as being discriminatory.

Originally Posted by classicman

You are such a hypocrite - You choose to support a boycott and I choose to support the state.

Please explain what is hypocritical about my comment. I dont have problem with you supporting the state. I disagree with you, but I never brought support of America into the equation, which iMO, is nonsense.

But correct me if I am wrong...you are the one who suggests or infers that supporting America has some relation to supporting your position.

If I misinterpreted, please explain what supporting America has to do with support a state law as opposed to expressing concern about a state law.

Support the state or boycott the state..that is everyone's right and it has absolutely nothing to with supporting America.

Any law - traffic laws - anything where the police have to use their discretion could be construed as being discriminatory.

Traffic laws are far more likely to be applied equally to all races (despite "driving while black or brown) than a state law that makes illegal immigration a state crime and thus, by its very nature and objectives, far more likely to be applied more to one race than others

This law has the real potential and likelihood NOT to be applied equally to all citizens and legal residents.

There is no comparison to traffic laws or any other laws.

[Shawnee123]

I can imagine the outrage if NY passed a similar law targeting muslims (or anyone who just looks the part.)

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I can imagine the outrage if NY passed a similar law targeting muslims (or anyone who just looks the part.)

Or Christians.