http://people-press.org/report/613/arizo...ration-law

As is typical of loopy California, LA begs to differ with the rest of the nation.

Quote:The Los Angeles City Council, protesting Arizona's tough crackdown on illegal immigration, voted Wednesday to ban most city travel to Arizona and future contracts with companies in that state.

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/201...-poll.html

You'd think LA would have other problems to worry about

Quote:The city is facing budget gaps of $700 million over 16 months, but the problems will linger for at least several years. By 2013, a $1 billion gap is projected as expenses outpace the money coming into the city treasury

Santana said 4,000 layoffs endorsed by the City Council and backed by the mayor would save $300 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1, not enough to close the gap.

http://cbs2.com/local/Los.Angeles.budget.2.1526446.html

The best thing for Los Angeles would be if the other 49 states passed the AZ measures.

(05-13-2010 02:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  The best thing for Los Angeles would be if the other 49 states passed the AZ measures.

Then all the illegals would come here, I live about 45 miles from LA.

(05-13-2010 02:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-13-2010 02:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  The best thing for Los Angeles would be if the other 49 states passed the AZ measures.

Then all the illegals would come here, I live about 45 miles from LA.

But, at least the city would have an effective spending cap. And, you probably wouldn't notice the difference anyways.

(05-13-2010 01:57 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:The city is facing budget gaps of $700 million over 16 months, but the problems will linger for at least several years. By 2013, a $1 billion gap is projected as expenses outpace the money coming into the city treasury

Santana said 4,000 layoffs endorsed by the City Council and backed by the mayor would save $300 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1, not enough to close the gap.

http://cbs2.com/local/Los.Angeles.budget.2.1526446.html

That's not the whole story. Some of the layoffs would affect union workers and, according to the contract the mayor helped negotiate, those layoffs will trigger pay raises for a lot of the workers who remain on the job. So the effective spending reduction is millions less.

I doubt that police departments are going to really spend much time enforcing this law. Maybe at first..but..Then they are going to realize that it is expensive to enforce and does nothing to add to their coffers. Lets not forget that handing out citations that carry cash fines are what pays their salaries.

(05-13-2010 03:22 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I doubt that police departments are going to really spend much time enforcing this law.

Eh, a few may look the other way. For certain jurisdictions in Arizona where Illegal Immigration is either not much a problem (the Navajo Nation, e.g.), or else the local populace is politically in favor of it (Cities of Tucson, Flagstaff, e.g.), I am sure enforcement of the new laws will not rank very highly on the police priority list. But in plenty of other areas it will.

Quote:Maybe at first..but..Then they are going to realize that it is expensive to enforce and does nothing to add to their coffers.

I would guess this fact has already occurred to them. But anyway, that is true of many laws. Most cops, most of the time, try to enforce such laws, anyway. I have a hunch that will be the case with these new laws in Arizona.

The main point is that the law enjoys the broad support of a strong majority of people, both in Arizona and across America, as measured by public survey data. There are some political lessons here for anyone who cares to learn them -- important lessons, and fairly simple ones, too. But it will probably take another 25 weeks (i.e., Election Day) before some people are able to figure them out.

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.

(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

(05-13-2010 01:57 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  As is typical of loopy California, LA begs to differ with the rest of the nation.

Quote:The Los Angeles City Council, protesting Arizona's tough crackdown on illegal immigration, voted Wednesday to ban most city travel to Arizona and future contracts with companies in that state.

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/201...-poll.html

You'd think LA would have other problems to worry about

Quote:The city is facing budget gaps of $700 million over 16 months, but the problems will linger for at least several years. By 2013, a $1 billion gap is projected as expenses outpace the money coming into the city treasury

Santana said 4,000 layoffs endorsed by the City Council and backed by the mayor would save $300 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1, not enough to close the gap.

http://cbs2.com/local/Los.Angeles.budget.2.1526446.html

LA and the rest of Calf will have more problems as the illegals move to Calf from AZ.

The LA Times has a poll asking if the council was right to boycott Arizona. 93% voted no.

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/201...on+Blog%29

(05-13-2010 07:10 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  The LA Times has a poll asking if the council was right to boycott Arizona. 93% voted no.

Not a "scientific" survey, of course.

(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.

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

There are many factors other than direct financial cost that have to be weighed when deciding what the law should be. But even if we ignore all the other things and look at it purely from the point-of-view of cost/benefit to the taxpayer, I guess the question sort of becomes: How expensive is it to assert control over our national borders, vs. how expensive is it to forfeit such control. For me, and (apparently) the majority of people in Arizona, the common experience of the past 30 years or so leads overwhelmingly to the belief that it is more expensive by far to the American taxpayer to let the border go undefended. Hopefully, this issue will be talked about every day between now and November 2nd, so that the electorate -- in Arizona and everywhere else -- can render its own verdict on the question.

Time for the federal gov't to step in.

(05-13-2010 01:43 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  http://people-press.org/report/613/arizo...ration-law

There were(are?) also 70+% who believed that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. THere are a lot of uninformed people out there.

(05-14-2010 12:13 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-13-2010 01:43 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  http://people-press.org/report/613/arizo...ration-law

There were(are?) also 70+% who believed that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. THere are a lot of uninformed people out there.

More than 90 Duke professors signed a petition condemning the racist and sexist acts of the lacross team when they, ahem, raped that slut. Still want to argue numbers? More than half the country thought Obama would be a good president - man, were they wrong.

Anyway, how can a person be misinformed about Arizona's law - you're either in favor of keeping illegals out of this country or you're not. Only our Attorney General seems to be misinformed.

(05-14-2010 09:06 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

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

There are many factors other than direct financial cost that have to be weighed when deciding what the law should be. But even if we ignore all the other things and look at it purely from the point-of-view of cost/benefit to the taxpayer, I guess the question sort of becomes: How expensive is it to assert control over our national borders, vs. how expensive is it to forfeit such control. For me, and (apparently) the majority of people in Arizona, the common experience of the past 30 years or so leads overwhelmingly to the belief that it is more expensive by far to the American taxpayer to let the border go undefended. Hopefully, this issue will be talked about every day between now and November 2nd, so that the electorate -- in Arizona and everywhere else -- can render its own verdict on the question.

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.

Quote:Any bets on its real success? I'll give odds that it will fail

Define "success" and "fail." As far as I'm concerned, every time an illegal alien is caught and detained in Arizona, the law is succeeding. Every time an illegal alien decides to not enter Arizona in the first place, the law is succeeding. Every time some liberal decides to "boycott" Arizona and stay away, the law is succeeding (granted, that's an "unintended consequence," but still a welcome one.