(05-15-2010 08:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I would contend that the real expense is being borne by those that are stolen from to pay for this law and its enforcement.. and those that are stolen from to pay for the welfare state that has caused this problem.

If "those that are stolen from" = "the taxpayer", then you are agreeing with me. If not, then I don't understand your point.

Quote:The problem is the welfare state...not people traveling across an imaginary line in the sand. Instead of fixing the problem by reducing government...we propose to enlarge government!...It is just another example of how government grows and WE have to pay for it.

I agree. But none of that, IMO, refutes or undermines what I said in #8 or #15.

I would love to eliminate "the welfare state," as I define that term. Failing that, I would love it if Arizona could do so. But "eliminating the welfare state" is, unfortunately, beyond Arizona's power and mine. What is NOT beyond Arizona's power is to instruct its own law-enforcement officers that humane, reasonable measures -- and yes, I do consider the new law to be humane and reasonable -- be taken to identify and detain those persons who are residing in the state illegally. The fact that some laws are financially "expensive" to enforce is relevant but not dispositive. Some laws are worth the added expense, some are not. I think this law is worth it, and I take it you do not. Fair enough. How about if we let the voters of Arizona have the final say? I hear there's an election coming up in a few months.

(05-15-2010 08:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The problem is the welfare state...

Agree to a large degree but not totally. They could still come here to sell drugs or commit other crimes.

(05-15-2010 08:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  ...not people traveling across an imaginary line in the sand.

That line defines our national sovereignty, crossing it for the purpose of invading us, and that's what they're doing, is serious business.

(05-15-2010 08:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Instead of fixing the problem by reducing government...we propose to enlarge government!...It is just another example of how government grows and WE have to pay for it.

Sadly, I don't think we'll ever see the government get smaller or less expensive.

(05-15-2010 08:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Any bets on its real success?

Not a chance. What will most likely happen is some illegals might not go to Arizona for fear of being arrested. Eventually, when they find out no one is enforcing the law, they'll come back. We might see a few token arrests and deportations but they probably would have happened anyway.

For a law that supposedly will "fail" or have "no effect" on immigration, it sure has managed to put the likes of Richard Trumka into a state of frothing hysteria/panic. Granted, that's not very hard to do, but still...

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/...49f29.html

(05-15-2010 08:32 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-15-2010 08:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I would contend that the real expense is being borne by those that are stolen from to pay for this law and its enforcement.. and those that are stolen from to pay for the welfare state that has caused this problem.

If "those that are stolen from" = "the taxpayer", then you are agreeing with me. If not, then I don't understand your point.

Quote:The problem is the welfare state...not people traveling across an imaginary line in the sand. Instead of fixing the problem by reducing government...we propose to enlarge government!...It is just another example of how government grows and WE have to pay for it.

I agree. But none of that, IMO, refutes or undermines what I said in #8 or #15.

I would love to eliminate "the welfare state," as I define that term. Failing that, I would love it if Arizona could do so. But "eliminating the welfare state" is, unfortunately, beyond Arizona's power and mine. What is NOT beyond Arizona's power is to instruct its own law-enforcement officers that humane, reasonable measures -- and yes, I do consider the new law to be humane and reasonable -- be taken to identify and detain those persons who are residing in the state illegally. The fact that some laws are financially "expensive" to enforce is relevant but not dispositive. Some laws are worth the added expense, some are not. I think this law is worth it, and I take it you do not. Fair enough. How about if we let the voters of Arizona have the final say? I hear there's an election coming up in a few months.

I don't really object to the state of Arizona doing whatever the people there want to. I think it is going to be a trivial attempt that will turn out to be mostly grandstanding for law and order types..but..I do support states rights.

(05-16-2010 08:18 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-15-2010 08:32 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-15-2010 08:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I would contend that the real expense is being borne by those that are stolen from to pay for this law and its enforcement.. and those that are stolen from to pay for the welfare state that has caused this problem.

If "those that are stolen from" = "the taxpayer", then you are agreeing with me. If not, then I don't understand your point.

Quote:The problem is the welfare state...not people traveling across an imaginary line in the sand. Instead of fixing the problem by reducing government...we propose to enlarge government!...It is just another example of how government grows and WE have to pay for it.

I agree. But none of that, IMO, refutes or undermines what I said in #8 or #15.

I would love to eliminate "the welfare state," as I define that term. Failing that, I would love it if Arizona could do so. But "eliminating the welfare state" is, unfortunately, beyond Arizona's power and mine. What is NOT beyond Arizona's power is to instruct its own law-enforcement officers that humane, reasonable measures -- and yes, I do consider the new law to be humane and reasonable -- be taken to identify and detain those persons who are residing in the state illegally. The fact that some laws are financially "expensive" to enforce is relevant but not dispositive. Some laws are worth the added expense, some are not. I think this law is worth it, and I take it you do not. Fair enough. How about if we let the voters of Arizona have the final say? I hear there's an election coming up in a few months.

I don't really object to the state of Arizona doing whatever the people there want to. I think it is going to be a trivial attempt that will turn out to be mostly grandstanding for law and order types..but..I do support states rights.

How expensive is it going to be for illegals to move to Bankrupt California, voluntarily? Where there is no funds for anything except Gov't workers salaries. Gang's and Stoner's Heaven. Heck, Arizona will fund the bus ticket, it's cheaper.

(05-14-2010 07:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-13-2010 04:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-13-2010 04:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think the bigger issue is that when someone is caught for nuisance violations like public intoxication, fighting, vandalism or loitering, they can actually enforce the state law rather than notifying the feds who won't enforce it, so the guy walks after "sleeping it off"... or a domestic violence charge where the abused won't press charges because she's also illegal.

+1

As with any almost every new law...unintended consequences will occur. If the police actually enforce this law...they will have little time for anything else along the border and it is going to be very expensive to enforce.

Then you miss the point of my post. If someone is arrested for vagrancy, petty crimes or domestic abuse, they can be deported for being here illegally. This is important because in the past, when arrested for petty crimes, they are set free because the feds decline to prosecute. We're not talking about a trial here. Either the guy has papers or not, and the feds are required to help the states determine that. Not one moment of time is spent looking for illegals... it's merely something that can be done to them if they're caught in the normal course of law enforcement.

(05-15-2010 08:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I would contend that the real expense is being beared by those that are stolen from to pay for this law and its enforcement.. and those that are stolen from to pay for the welfare state that has caused this problem.

The problem is the welfare state...not people traveling across an imaginary line in the sand. Instead of fixing the problem by reducing government...we propose to enlarge government!...It is just another example of how government grows and WE have to pay for it.

Any bets on its real success? Ill give odds that it will fail.

I think the cost of enforcement will be far less than the cost of educating their children/providing healthcare etc. They aren't so much enforcing the border as much as they are catching people once they're here and being able to do something with them.

(05-16-2010 04:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-14-2010 07:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-13-2010 04:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-13-2010 04:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think the bigger issue is that when someone is caught for nuisance violations like public intoxication, fighting, vandalism or loitering, they can actually enforce the state law rather than notifying the feds who won't enforce it, so the guy walks after "sleeping it off"... or a domestic violence charge where the abused won't press charges because she's also illegal.

+1

As with any almost every new law...unintended consequences will occur. If the police actually enforce this law...they will have little time for anything else along the border and it is going to be very expensive to enforce.

Then you miss the point of my post. If someone is arrested for vagrancy, petty crimes or domestic abuse, they can be deported for being here illegally. This is important because in the past, when arrested for petty crimes, they are set free because the feds decline to prosecute. We're not talking about a trial here. Either the guy has papers or not, and the feds are required to help the states determine that. Not one moment of time is spent looking for illegals... it's merely something that can be done to them if they're caught in the normal course of law enforcement.

(05-15-2010 08:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I would contend that the real expense is being beared by those that are stolen from to pay for this law and its enforcement.. and those that are stolen from to pay for the welfare state that has caused this problem.

The problem is the welfare state...not people traveling across an imaginary line in the sand. Instead of fixing the problem by reducing government...we propose to enlarge government!...It is just another example of how government grows and WE have to pay for it.

Any bets on its real success? Ill give odds that it will fail.

I think the cost of enforcement will be far less than the cost of educating their children/providing healthcare etc. They aren't so much enforcing the border as much as they are catching people once they're here and being able to do something with them.

I hate to keep posting the same thing over and over(for SOAF)..but..you back up my assertion that the welfare state is the cause of this mess...and I include your above two items as part of the "welfare state". Law or no law...people are still going to travel across the imaginary line and the US will still give out benefits to them...nothing is likely to change except that the size of the law enforcement bureaucracy gets to be enlarged and more stolen wages will be needed to fund it and the welfare state that is causing the problems. Sound and fury signifying..nothing..IMO. Meanwhile...You and I get stuck paying for this. Such is the growth and evolution of big government.

(05-16-2010 08:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Law or no law...people are still going to travel across the imaginary line and the US will still give out benefits to them...nothing is likely to change except that the size of the law enforcement bureaucracy gets to be enlarged and more stolen wages will be needed to fund it and the welfare state that is causing the problems.

You keep saying this but I don't believe it's true. Everything I've seen and read indicates that the number of illegal immigrants in the US declined as a result of the poor economy. If you've every done any business with illegal aliens (I have - shame on me!), you'll get the feeling that they're here to work hard and either: 1) make a better life here, or 2) send as much back home as possible. Obviously, option #2 is not helping anyone in this country. But it's pretty clear that folks are not streaming across the border because of food stamps and health care. They're coming here for CASH.

I don't believe the problem is welfare; it's poor/non-enforcement of existing immigration law. The fix is to enforce existing law and/or repair it to the point where it CAN be enforced.

(05-17-2010 03:06 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-16-2010 08:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Law or no law...people are still going to travel across the imaginary line and the US will still give out benefits to them...nothing is likely to change except that the size of the law enforcement bureaucracy gets to be enlarged and more stolen wages will be needed to fund it and the welfare state that is causing the problems.

You keep saying this but I don't believe it's true. Everything I've seen and read indicates that the number of illegal immigrants in the US declined as a result of the poor economy. If you've every done any business with illegal aliens (I have - shame on me!), you'll get the feeling that they're here to work hard and either: 1) make a better life here, or 2) send as much back home as possible. Obviously, option #2 is not helping anyone in this country. But it's pretty clear that folks are not streaming across the border because of food stamps and health care. They're coming here for CASH.

I don't believe the problem is welfare; it's poor/non-enforcement of existing immigration law. The fix is to enforce existing law and/or repair it to the point where it CAN be enforced.

Get rid of welfare, and the natives will be forced to take those jobs that "American's don't want to do."

But, I think there are combinations of many things. Plenty of schools and other gov't programs deal w/ illegals as clients.

(05-17-2010 03:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Plenty of schools and other gov't programs deal w/ illegals as clients.

No disagreement here. I'm only arguing that it's not the (primary) incentive for illegal immigration.

(05-17-2010 03:42 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 03:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Plenty of schools and other gov't programs deal w/ illegals as clients.

No disagreement here. I'm only arguing that it's not the (primary) incentive for illegal immigration.

Yes...for clarification...I include public health care(ie local health departments) and education into what I consider the welfare state.

I agree with you that wanting a better life is the primary incentive for traveling...then we give them the incentive to stay with welfare state handouts. Im under no illusion though that it is the only problem. Hell..We have more welfare queens bilking the system than that of the travelers.
Im for ending ALL of it.

(05-17-2010 03:42 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 03:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Plenty of schools and other gov't programs deal w/ illegals as clients.

No disagreement here. I'm only arguing that it's not the (primary) incentive for illegal immigration.

Weren't there news articles on US school children in El Paso who didn't live in the US?

I guess technically, they're parents are more noble b/c they still live in Mexico. And the kids are only part-time illegal immigrants. But isn't this just a different facet to the same problem?

(05-17-2010 04:22 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 03:42 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 03:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Plenty of schools and other gov't programs deal w/ illegals as clients.

No disagreement here. I'm only arguing that it's not the (primary) incentive for illegal immigration.

Weren't there news articles on US school children in El Paso who didn't live in the US?

I guess technically, they're parents are more noble b/c they still live in Mexico. And the kids are only part-time illegal immigrants. But isn't this just a different facet to the same problem?

Sure, but it's a drop in the bucket. How many of 10 or 11 million illegal immigrants can possibly cross the border daily/weekly for school (or to obtain other services)? I'm still convinced that the biggest contributors to this problem are US industries that depend on and promote the migration of undocumented laborers.