Alabama sucks. (in Debates)


QBOddBird October 6 2011 9:39 AM EDT

http://consumerist.com/2011/10/alabama-illegal-immigrant-law-could-leave-state-with-job-surplus.html

Yeah, +1 to enforced racial profiling

QBRanger October 6 2011 9:43 AM EDT

What is wrong with making sure illegal activity is punished?

+1 to Alabama for doing what the federal government refuses.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 9:49 AM EDT

No, this means that police pull people over for driving while mexican - legally - and may detain them while they check their legality. I've seen a lot of illegals leave, and I also have mexican friends who have left because they feel unfairly targeted. They ask "why is this state so racist?"

And some of the illegals have been trying. I know one who came into the country illegally and had children here...she's tried to get legal status, but would have to return to mexico for 10 years first. That's an unreasonable requirement, and as a result she stayed illegal. Making it easier to become a citizen would be better than pulling over people who are too tan.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 9:51 AM EDT

Additionally, in my area, a much-needed hospital has been forced to stop construction because none of the contractors they hired can convince their workers to come here and build it.

QBRanger October 6 2011 9:54 AM EDT

And some of the illegals have been trying. I know one who came into the country illegally and had children here...she's tried to get legal status, but would have to return to mexico for 10 years first. That's an unreasonable requirement, and as a result she stayed illegal. Making it easier to become a citizen would be better than pulling over people who are too tan.

She came into the US ILLEGALLY. Enough said.

Now if you want to discuss immigration reform, I would be all for that in a nice debates post as I have a personal plan for reform.

But giving people a chance at citizenship while they are here illegally and since they came here illegally is completely wrong.

The blanket amnesty Reagan did in the 80s is one of the only things I disagreed.

QBRanger October 6 2011 9:55 AM EDT

In fact, one of the reasons I am moving to Arizona is their new immigration law.

Finally someone doing what the government refuses.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 9:56 AM EDT

Giving people a chance at citizenship because they came here illegally is wrong? What? They should have just as much of a chance as anyone to obtain citizenship.

Also, here's another link for you.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/us/immigration-one-family/

AdminTitan October 6 2011 9:58 AM EDT

Who do you think deserve a citizenship first OB? Someone who obeys are laws and doesn't come here illegally and tries the system? Or someone who ignores it first, comes here, and after they have much staked in our country, then try for citizenship?

QBRanger October 6 2011 10:04 AM EDT

I read that link OB.

Very interesting story.

But they still came over illegally.

She has 3 choices. Go back to Mexico with her kids or without them. Or she can move to another state/city. One like San Francisco that is a "sanctuary city" that lets people who break the law flaunt it.

Why are we rewarding people for breaking the law? Just as people chat about the fat cat Wall Street bankers that should do time for their parts in the financial crash, they would like people who break the immigration law go scott free?

QBRanger October 6 2011 10:05 AM EDT

Giving people a chance at citizenship because they came here illegally is wrong? What? They should have just as much of a chance as anyone to obtain citizenship.

Wrong!

They came here ILLEGALLY. The BROKE the law.

They should have ZERO chance at obtaining citizenship. None, nada, zip, zero.

The immigration system may be messed up, I can agree with that. But they broke the law.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 10:07 AM EDT

Who do you think deserve a citizenship first OB? Someone who obeys are laws and doesn't come here illegally and tries the system? Or someone who ignores it first, comes here, and after they have much staked in our country, then try for citizenship?

Quoted from "sponger42" in the city-data.com forums:

For ordinary people who are not extremely wealthy or internationally famous there are two legal pathways to US citizenship: Family and Work.

Because of the current backlogs, obtaining a work visa and then changing it to a citizenship requires at least a Bachelor of Science degree, a permanent job in the United States, about 10K in fees, and at least 7 years (though currently USCIS only accepts 50K applications out of 500K, so you could add "impossibly good luck" to the requirements.)

Family visas are easier if you have a family member who is a US citizen. They require about 8K in fees, and the following wait times:
Sibling: 20 Years
Parent: 6 Years
Spouse: 6 Years

Many universities do not require that you be a citizen in order to recieve in-state tuition. You may only need to live legally in that state for a year or so before enrolling in school. A temporary non-permanent-resident-granting visa might allow you to meet these requirements.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/legal-immigration/304822-how-difficult-getting-american-citizenship-2.html#ixzz1a0iER8jK

end quote

The problem is that they deserve a chance at citizenship just as much as anyone else, but are prohibited from doing so the legal way. Yes, I believe they deserve a chance at citizenship just as much as anyone else.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 10:11 AM EDT

So what you're saying, Ranger, is that poor people should not be allowed to come into the US, and if they come in illegally and work hard to obtain the money to get citizenship, then they still shouldn't be allowed because they came in illegally.

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 10:17 AM EDT

OB, I think Ranger is agreeing with you that the rules in place are onerous and could do with reform, so quoting just HOW terribly onerous the laws are isn't necessarily adding value to the discussion. Additionally, polarizing the discussion with specific, family-based anecdotes probably isn't helping get to meat of the matter, either (we all know people and have heard stories that can make things seem unfair, that doesn't mean those emotionally-charged tales should help make policy).

As far as the racial profiling goes, if a Hispanic person (legal citizen) gets pulled over, I think they should immediately sue the government for 14th Amendment rights violations. I don;t know about you, but random pull-overs based on race sound like a pretty big crimp on "pursuit of happiness".

Ranger, if you are against the individual mandate in healthcare (on a Constitutional basis), how can you be in support of policies that clearly violate the Constitution also?

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 10:19 AM EDT

So what you're saying, Ranger, is that poor people should not be allowed to come into the US, and if they come in illegally and work hard to obtain the money to get citizenship, then they still shouldn't be allowed because they came in illegally.

No, OB, if I may speak for Ranger, I think he is saying reform the rules. While that doesn't necessarily speak to what to do with those already here, it sounds like a reasonable starting point for me.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 6 2011 10:21 AM EDT

How is attempting to control migration with laws any more sensible than an interventionist market policy? Labor and migration are huge factors in the market! It's like the idiotic attempt to control vice markets...

QBOddBird October 6 2011 10:27 AM EDT

As far as the racial profiling goes, if a Hispanic person (legal citizen) gets pulled over, I think they should immediately sue the government for 14th Amendment rights violations. I don;t know about you, but random pull-overs based on race sound like a pretty big crimp on "pursuit of happiness".

http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2011/08/alabama_immigration_law_option.html

Particularly this part:

Section 5 of the law invites citizens to sue their local cop or court official if they believe the immigration laws are not being fully enforced. Although they can be sued only in their official capacity, the law enforcement officials can be fined and government funding to their offices halted.

So if they pull them over, the Hispanic can sue for racial profiling; if they fail to pull them over, the citizenry can sue the police and have their government funding cut off.

No win

QBRanger October 6 2011 10:31 AM EDT

So what you're saying, Ranger, is that poor people should not be allowed to come into the US, and if they come in illegally and work hard to obtain the money to get citizenship, then they still shouldn't be allowed because they came in illegally.

If they come illegally the should not be ever allowed to get citizenship and should be sent back home in short order.

The problem is that they deserve a chance at citizenship just as much as anyone else, but are prohibited from doing so the legal way. Yes, I believe they deserve a chance at citizenship just as much as anyone else.

That is for immigration reform to address. Until then, they are here illegally.

As Sut stated, the laws are messed up, but they still are the laws.

Ranger, if you are against the individual mandate in healthcare (on a Constitutional basis), how can you be in support of policies that clearly violate the Constitution also?

How do these policies violate the Constitution?

I do not know the AL law as well as I know the AZ law. The AZ law prohibits the police from check immigration status until a person has broken another law. Then they can freely check.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 10:32 AM EDT

No, OB, if I may speak for Ranger, I think he is saying reform the rules. While that doesn't necessarily speak to what to do with those already here, it sounds like a reasonable starting point for me.

Fair enough, I agree with reforming the rules. My problem is with the way we are handling those who are already here. It is racial profiling, and is going to seriously kill Alabama's productive capacity for...anything.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 10:32 AM EDT

as a country would we be okay with everyone having to carry their citizenship papers at all times and law enforcement being able to detain large groups until they can prove such citizenship?

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 10:32 AM EDT

OB, anyone can sue for anything in this country. It doesn't matter what little policy riders some department says. If I print "I get to hit you and you can't arrest me" on a t-shirt, it doesn't mean I can go around assaulting people. *smile*

If the law us unconstitutional, it can be overturned. But it is true that the resources it would take for that are substantial. It would take someone like the ACLU to have a strong. specific case for things to even get started.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 10:33 AM EDT

I do not know the AL law as well as I know the AZ law. The AZ law prohibits the police from check immigration status until a person has broken another law. Then they can freely check.

That's not the case here.

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 10:35 AM EDT

I do not know the AL law as well as I know the AZ law. The AZ law prohibits the police from check immigration status until a person has broken another law. Then they can freely check.

I was under the assumption the rules were looser in this case, but I haven't read every link yet...

Even with the "have to break another law", that isn't much in the way of being fair. An officer can always find something that could be an infraction: "You smell pot"? "Is that guy weaving a little bit?"

No one drives perfectly, for example, and it is not fair to expect that someone with tan skin needs to try to be more perfect than someone with white skin just so their life isn't inconvenienced. That's a violation of liberty and pursuit of happiness as far as I am concerned.

QBRanger October 6 2011 10:36 AM EDT

as a country would we be okay with everyone having to carry their citizenship papers at all times and law enforcement being able to detain large groups until they can prove such citizenship?

Right now legal immigrants all have to carry their papers with them.

Can you tell me the specifics of the AL law?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 10:37 AM EDT

does that mean you are ok with the scenario i presented ranger?

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 10:38 AM EDT

Right now legal immigrants all have to carry their papers with them.

Why should they be the only ones who need to "prove it"?

Looking at me, I could be a German immigrant. How can one tell I am naturalized just by looking?

Now, mentally think through the converse of that. If you can't assume I am legal, how can you assume someone else is ILlegal and have lawful right to steal that person's liberty?

QBOddBird October 6 2011 10:43 AM EDT

Can you tell me the specifics of the AL law?

I can give you the whole thing! :D

http://media.al.com/bn/other/Alabama%20Immigration%20Law%202011.pdf

QBOddBird October 6 2011 10:46 AM EDT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/the-nations-cruelest-immigration-law.html?_r=1

- and a NY Times article for the specifics, if you don't want to read that long document.

AdminTitan October 6 2011 10:47 AM EDT

I'm gone 10minutes and most of my points are already addressed... I hate you Sut :P

QBRanger October 6 2011 10:50 AM EDT

Let me ask you OB;

Should we just give amnesty to all illegals? Open ou borders? Forget about the rule of law?

Lochnivar October 6 2011 10:52 AM EDT

Should we just give amnesty to all illegals? Open ou borders? Forget about the rule of law?

It would serve the free-market better...

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 11:01 AM EDT

Should we just give amnesty to all illegals? Open ou borders? Forget about the rule of law?

Can't we stick with separate topics:

-- There is the issue on what to do with those already here. That's a tough one. It's also not what the main thrust of OB's OP is about.
-- OB is writing about the profiling aspect of this law. Let's stick to that.

If people can be pulled over and have to have proof of citizenship, then I have the following questions for you, Ranger:

-- How is that not a violation of liberty, even if there is a "gotta have a reason" policy on the books (because it is is easy to have a reason).
-- Why don't we all have to have proof of citizenship on us at all times, because there is no way to know (just by looking) if someone is illegal, legal, or naturalized?

Can we stick with the topic concerning the law and not conflate other issues onto that until the issue becomes muddied and intractable, please.

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:19 AM EDT

-- How is that not a violation of liberty, even if there is a "gotta have a reason" policy on the books (because it is is easy to have a reason).
-- Why don't we all have to have proof of citizenship on us at all times, because there is no way to know (just by looking) if someone is illegal, legal, or naturalized?


For me it is simple. We have allowed illegal people to be and stay in the US for years without doing much in the way of enforcemen.
I have no problem carrying my drivers license with me everywhere I go. I have no problems with a "gotta have a reason" policy. Why? Because at the first sign of true racial profiliing the ACLU will have that state in court as fast as possible.

Is it a violation of liberty to be "forced" to carry your drivers license with you when you use a car? Or "forced" to carry an ID if you want to go into a R rated movie or buy alcohol?

Yes, certainly the current system is broken and needs radical reforms. But for the people here illegally, they are here ILLEGALLY.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 11:21 AM EDT

once again, are you ok with all of us being assigned papers and mass detainments to prove citizenship?

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:27 AM EDT

It effectively makes it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant in Alabama, by criminalizing working, renting a home and failing to comply with federal registration laws that are largely obsolete. It nullifies any contracts when one party is an undocumented immigrant. It requires the police to check the papers of people they suspect to be here illegally.

The new regime does not spare American citizens. Businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants will lose their licenses. Public school officials will be required to determine studentsメ immigration status and report back to the state. Anyone knowingly モconcealing, harboring or shieldingヤ an illegal immigrant could be charged with a crime, say for renting someone an apartment or driving her to church or the doctor.

The meat of the NYT article. I have to preface this by stating, as everyone knows, the NYT is a very left paper.

Now to the article:

I have a problem with the obvious heart strings they try to pull using the "obselete" verbiage. It is the fraking law! Obselete or not, there are way to get the laws off the books or change them.

The only problem I have with the first paragraph is the suspect being here illegally. That certainly can lead to profilling. In Arizona, people have to be seen committing a crime. That is fine with me. The suspect being here illegally is a bit over the line. The other parts such as renting homes and working are perfect.

The second paragraph is great also. Businesses should not be in cahoots with illegals giving them jobs. The key word is knowingly. Schools should check illegal status. Hell, I pay taxes for public schools. There is only a certain amount of resources out there.

Again, the key word is knowingly. To knowingly help someone break the law is a crime, and they should be punished.

Like I stated, I do have a problem with "It requires the police to check the papers of people they suspect to be here illegally." However, I do not know if that is really the case, or something the NYT overstated to make it seem worse than it is.

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:30 AM EDT

once again, are you ok with all of us being assigned papers and mass detainments to prove citizenship?

Assigned papers, no. Being asked to carry evidence of citizenship, sure. Only if there is reasonable suspicion of committing a crime. I carry my driver's license with me everywhere I go. Legal immigrants are required by federal law to carry their documentation with them everywhere they go. My fingerprints are on file with the FBI and DEA. I have no problem with that.

Mass detainments, of course not. I do not think anyone brought that up in this thread. How did you get to that thought?

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 11:31 AM EDT

The meat of the NYT article. I have to preface this by stating, as everyone knows, the NYT is a very left paper.

So? You are a person with very "right" views. What does that have to do with anything? Can we just discuss the issue?

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:33 AM EDT

Section 5 of the law invites citizens to sue their local cop or court official if they believe the immigration laws are not being fully enforced. Although they can be sued only in their official capacity, the law enforcement officials can be fined and government funding to their offices halted.

Yea, that is over the top as written. I do like the other parts discussed above.

I like the Arizona law much better, however, no matter what attempts the states try to solve this problem, the federal goverment just wants to keep the status quo. Looking the other way. and in some cases advocating illegal immigration.

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:35 AM EDT

So? You are a person with very "right" views. What does that have to do with anything? Can we just discuss the issue?

Yes Sut, we are. I am prefacing that with stating that the NYT article is skewed very left. Using words like obselete in an attempt to pull on the heart strings. If one quotes an article, I do think the leanings of that article is important.

If you cannot understand that, then let OB and myself continue this converstaion.

Or are you going to pick at everything I say from now on?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 11:39 AM EDT

it was a simple expansion of the law in question from a subset of the population to the whole. the only fair way to enact such a law is if it affects everyone equally since we can't visually discern legals from illegals.

by mass detainment, i simply meant that to check everyone it would be inconvenient when done and time-consuming.

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 11:40 AM EDT

Is it a violation of liberty to be "forced" to carry your drivers license with you when you use a car? Or "forced" to carry an ID if you want to go into a R rated movie or buy alcohol?

I was under the impression that someone needs to have more proof than just a driver's license -- that's kind of the whole point. If someone of darker skin only has their license, could not the office haul that person in under this law, demanding further proof of citizenship? How is a driver's license proof enough, and how does the officer know if the person is SUPPOSED to have more? How can they know I am a naturalized citizen and not an illegal immigrant from Germany?

Yes, certainly the current system is broken and needs radical reforms. But for the people here illegally, they are here ILLEGALLY.

Sure, Ranger, but a lot of illegal things are going on right now, and the police do NOT have this sort of latitude in terms of "discovery".

Let's take a different angle.

If the State of Wisconsin suddenly had a MASSIVE meth problem, like, really bad, and it was determined that the people who make and deal drugs are by and large white males, would you be OK with the the state making a rule (for the public good!) that police can, with a reason, search any white man's car without further proof of wrongdoing? Also, force that white man to have all bank records with him at all times to show that his financial transactions are all above-board. Because drugs are ILLEGAL. It is an ILLEGAL activity.

And if someone is not dealing drugs, that person has nothing to hide, right? They can be profiled and made to produce records, too...that's OK, right?

Would you be OK with this scenario? If not, why not?

QBOddBird October 6 2011 11:40 AM EDT

I apologize for my absentee-ism from this thread, I'm watching my niece. She's adorable *o*

I will be back to participate in discussion as soon as possible!

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:43 AM EDT

But I guess the law is so unconstitutional it was upheld by a federal judge:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/us/alabama-immigration-law-upheld.html

Most of it was upheld except:
She blocked a broad provision that outlawed the harboring or transporting of illegal immigrants and another that barred illegal immigrants from enrolling in or attending public universities.

I also read:
The judge upheld a section that requires state and local law enforcement officials to try to verify a personメs immigration status during routine traffic stops or arrests, if モa reasonable suspicionヤ exists that the person is in the country illegally. And she ruled that a section that criminalized the モwillful failureヤ of a person in the country illegally to carry federal immigration papers did not pre-empt federal law.


I read nothing about the police having to check the immigration status of anyone they just suspect of being illegal. I read only that there is reasonable suspicion DURING arrests or traffic violations. That is a big difference from how it was presented earlier in this thread.

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:44 AM EDT

If the State of Wisconsin suddenly had a MASSIVE meth problem, like, really bad, and it was determined that the people who make and deal drugs are by and large white males, would you be OK with the the state making a rule (for the public good!) that police can, with a reason, search any white man's car without further proof of wrongdoing? Also, force that white man to have all bank records with him at all times to show that his financial transactions are all above-board. Because drugs are ILLEGAL. It is an ILLEGAL activity.

Let us stick to the topic at hand and not get off topic please *smile*

AdminTitan October 6 2011 11:45 AM EDT

She blocked a broad provision that outlawed the harboring or transporting of illegal immigrants

I thought harboring a criminal was already illegal?

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:46 AM EDT

Titan,

I do not know the specifics but via the articles verbiage, I suspect the problem was the broadness of the provision.

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 11:50 AM EDT

Yes Sut, we are. I am prefacing that with stating that the NYT article is skewed very left. Using words like obselete in an attempt to pull on the heart strings. If one quotes an article, I do think the leanings of that article is important.

You use words every bit as strong and manipulative as a term like "obsolete", and you are right-leaning. Should I preface every reply you make with "keep in mind, everyone, that Ranger is very right-minded..." What point would that serve? How would that add value to an open, fruitful discussion?

Or are you going to pick at everything I say from now on?

Pick at everything you say? What are you talking about? On this very thread I have supported some of your statements (in order to clarify and keep the discussion on track) and have challenged some of your other points (also in order to clarify issues and understand where you are coming from). The richest irony here is that on another thread you _just_ told me I need to open my eyes and be more open-minded, that I just "didn't like the answers you were giving". Now you're telling me to buzz off because I am trying to have a clear discussion with you, sometimes saying things YOU don't like to hear? What kind of double standard is that?

For any folks who wonder why things get heated and personal from time to time, look no further. Please, by all means read everything I have written on this thread and tell me where I am "picking at everything" Ranger says. That is so exasperating!

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:51 AM EDT

I was under the impression that someone needs to have more proof than just a driver's license -- that's kind of the whole point. If someone of darker skin only has their license, could not the office haul that person in under this law, demanding further proof of citizenship? How is a driver's license proof enough, and how does the officer know if the person is SUPPOSED to have more? How can they know I am a naturalized citizen and not an illegal immigrant from Germany?

In Florida, AZ, AL as well as 44 other states, one has to be a US citizen and/or legal immigrant to obtain a driver's license. Thereofore having one is proof of being here legally.

Illegal Immigrants Can Get A Driverメs License in Utah, Washington, and New Mexico.

http://unaskedadvice.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/illegal-immigrants-can-get-a-drivers-license-in-utah-washington-and-new-mexico/

When UT, WA or NM pass such a law, or if the USG passes a law, then those states will need to find another method of documentation.

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 11:52 AM EDT

Let us stick to the topic at hand and not get off topic please *smile*

How is making a parallel situation and asking for your views on that "off topic"?

Can you tell me if you would agree or disagree with such a policy, and explain your yea or nay?

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 11:55 AM EDT

In Florida, AZ, AL as well as 44 other states, one has to be a US citizen and/or legal immigrant to obtain a driver's license. Therefore having one is proof of being here legally.

Then I am curious as to why there is so much fuss about all this. If someone is caught driving without a license, they will already be in trouble, no? Especially if caught multiple times? So why do we need additional laws about documentation? If the officer needs a reason to pull someone over, then finds they have no license, let the scenario play out. Why are we needing additional layers of bureaucracy?

Though, if the AL law lets pull-overs happen WITHOUT reason, then I would expect the same proportion of whites, blacks, etc. to be pulled over and be required to show their license.

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:55 AM EDT

Should we just give amnesty to all illegals? Open ou borders? Forget about the rule of law?

Once you let OB answer my questions.

Seems you are just like my 6 year old son. We play a game and he changes the rules of the game in midstream.

So it is ok for you to divert to a tangent, like drugs being illegal, but heaven forbid me asking OB his views on the topic at hand? Since he is the one who brought up how bad this AZ law is for illegals.

Best if I just /ignore your posts until you want to debate on a fair field.

BadFish October 6 2011 12:17 PM EDT

How can you protest the usage of verbiage that attempts to "pull the heartstrings" and then turn around and call someone a 6-year old?

God, I couldn't resist..... sorry

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 12:17 PM EDT

Wait, are you talking to me? I'm confused -- I didn't say what is in the quote... :\ Is this even addressed to me?

What would your questions to OB have to do with others on the thread posing hypotheticals or raising other questions for discussion fodder? You know you're not the only person on here, right? And that you don't have any special rights to have one-on-ones with someone or control the pace and tone of the thread. Can you confirm you understand that, because it honestly is sounding like you might not.

You certainly don't have to answer my question, but I don't understand why you are posting emphatic reasons why you refuse to -- just don't respond if you don't want to. I have no idea how that makes _me_ a six year old or changing rules. I posed some questions. Since when have ANY discussion threads been enforced as linear, one-question-at-a-time affairs?

You're getting pretty insulting, Ranger. What is your problem?

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 12:18 PM EDT

My above post was directed at Ranger's previous post, just to be clear I'm not referring to what BadFish wrote.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 12:25 PM EDT

I am back. Sorry for taking my leave so suddenly, she was bawling her eyes out and I didn't know why.

Turns out she couldn't find her bunny.


Should we just give amnesty to all illegals? Open ou borders? Forget about the rule of law?

Yes, I think we should take everything to the very most extreme option, Ranger. Is that what you're looking for?

AdminTitan October 6 2011 12:30 PM EDT

<sarcasm> Yes, I think we should take everything to the very most extreme option, Ranger. </sarcasm>

Fixed that for you OB ^

QBRanger October 6 2011 12:31 PM EDT

No OB.

You state that you dislike the AL law. What would be your solution to the problem of all the illegals in the US, and in this specific case Alabama?

Would you just let all the illegals stay? Would you give them citizenship?

Are you just against the possibly maybe racial profiling? Or are you against the other provisions such as businesses not employing illegals, or the provision about illegals not being able to rent apartments?

I like the law, if police have to have a reason to first pull you over before asking for your immigration status.

Lochnivar October 6 2011 12:39 PM EDT

So, out of curiousity, what if a Mexican national is in Alabama visiting family for a couple of weeks and gets pulled over... he isn't a citizen and he isn't breaking any law, what happens with him?

QBRanger October 6 2011 12:49 PM EDT

What happens to an American who is visiting in Mexico and gets pulled over for a traffic violation?

Or an American in Russia who gets pulled over?

Same as would happen here.

AdminTitan October 6 2011 12:53 PM EDT

Or an American in Russia who gets pulled over?

We shoot them?!?!?

QBRanger October 6 2011 1:00 PM EDT

I guess if they come out of the car armed with a gun shooting at the police.

Then shooting them would be the only right thing to, for public safety.

AdminTitan October 6 2011 1:02 PM EDT

It was a joke about Russia... you know shooting people, and drinking vodka and riding Reindeer...Russian stuff.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 1:12 PM EDT

So, out of curiousity, what if a Mexican national is in Alabama visiting family for a couple of weeks and gets pulled over... he isn't a citizen and he isn't breaking any law, what happens with him?

I don't know what the provisions are for those who are visiting for another country, or what papers they're supposed to be carrying. If he's not carrying the required documentation, however, he's going to be detained. That's why we can't get any construction workers to come down - the companies that are contracted to build here can't get their workers to go to Alabama, because they are illegal. I don't know what the case is for -visiting- from another country, though.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 1:21 PM EDT

No OB.

You state that you dislike the AL law. What would be your solution to the problem of all the illegals in the US, and in this specific case Alabama?

In the case of the Arizona law, checking if they've committed a crime, I think that's a fine idea. IMO, the solution is to make it easier to become a citizen, and remove or reduce the probationary period in which they have to return to their country.

Would you just let all the illegals stay? Would you give them citizenship?

I'll stick with the Arizona thing - if you're arrested, they check - and those who are seeking citizenship should have an easier time obtaining it. Those who are actually going to contribute to society should have the opportunity to do so, to earn their living here.

Are you just against the possibly maybe racial profiling? Or are you against the other provisions such as businesses not employing illegals, or the provision about illegals not being able to rent apartments?

I am primarily against the, not "possibly maybe," but definite racial profiling. Businesses should already be held accountable for employing illegals. I dislike the idea of involving the school system in this process, however, and disagree with those checks.

I like the law, if police have to have a reason to first pull you over before asking for your immigration status.

I don't, because the police can have a reason at any time.

They can simply estimate that your car is speeding:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/06/02/ohio-supreme-court-speed-estimate-valid.html

Hell, they can go arrest you in a bar for public intoxication.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/texas-racist-laws-drinking-while-brown

So no, that doesn't really pass as being 'good enough' for me.

Lochnivar October 6 2011 1:21 PM EDT

What happens to an American who is visiting in Mexico and gets pulled over for a traffic violation?

I didn't say for a traffic violation.

I was referred to getting pulled over for being 'Mexican' as is feared with the AL law...

I resent that response as it hinges in the premise that I am stupid.

QBRanger October 6 2011 1:22 PM EDT

Yes Titan, I know. My reply was supposed to be deap pan funny.

But I am shocked that in Alabama you cannot find plenty of union workers to build things given the high unemployement.

I find it hard to believe that all the construction workers in Alabama are illegals.

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 1:25 PM EDT

OB, why can't the contractor's hire other people -- we have 9% unemployment. I understand that can take time (training, specialties, expertise), but they can't even find enough workers to start a crew?

I was under the impression that unemployment numbers would be for US citizens to start with. So do unemployment figures count illegal immigrants? Sounds like they must, if this law can immediately turn a large lack into a surplus. So, almost ten percent of all employable people in Alabama are illegal immigrants? I guess I wasn't aware of the number of people involved.

QBOddBird October 6 2011 1:25 PM EDT

But I am shocked that in Alabama you cannot find plenty of union workers to build things given the high unemployement.

Strange, I know, but I'm just telling you the situation currently happening here in Madison. News supports this as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/as-new-immigration-law-in-alabama-takes-effect-construction-and-farm-workers-flee/2011/10/05/gIQAK8VNOL_story.html

QBOddBird October 6 2011 1:27 PM EDT

OB, why can't the contractor's hire other people -- we have 9% unemployment. I understand that can take time (training, specialties, expertise), but they can't even find enough workers to start a crew?

I dunno. Maybe 9% of the population is too good to work a construction job? I'm a bartender, I have no worries, and I'm actually out getting a (better) job now and having no problem doing so. I really have no explanation for the unemployment in my particular area.

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 1:29 PM EDT

(sorry, didn't see Ranger's post right above mine when I asked essentially the same question.)

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 1:32 PM EDT

I dunno. Maybe 9% of the population is too good to work a construction job? I'm a bartender, I have no worries, and I'm actually out getting a (better) job now and having no problem doing so. I really have no explanation for the unemployment in my particular area.

Surely it makes you take a little pause, though, no? That if a construction company is squawking (but not giving reasons why they can't scrounge up a crew)?

In other words, there's a different between "But we need those guys!" and "Well, we'd rather hire them because we can pay them less". I'm not saying that is the case, but the employers should be explaining why they can't find people rather than just saying, "Don't take illegal immigrants out of the mix!"

If other unemployed people simply won't do the work, I feel that is a whole 'nother can of worms...

QBOddBird October 6 2011 1:34 PM EDT

Hm...actually, when I look it up, my county has the lowest unemployment rate in Alabama.

http://www.waff.com/story/12323276/alabama-unemployment-falls-madison-county-has-lowest-rate?redirected=true

But still, 8%.

QBRanger October 6 2011 1:51 PM EDT

I could see for some farming jobs, it would be hard to find citizens to do the dirty work.

But as far as construction, I am shocked that people from other states are not flocking to Alabama for these new now open jobs that illegals once had.

But here is one thought I have on the illegal situation.

First we have to close the boarders. Fence, manpower, moats, etc.. Shut the border down.

Within 1 year, everyone who is illegal has to register. If they are not a felon or have less than 3 misdemeanors they stay, otherwise they are deported immediately.

Everyone who reports gets a permanents guest worker status. All rights of a citizen except 2. No right to vote, and if they commit a felony immediate deportation.

Everyone who does not register after 6 months gets immediately deported.

Then we have to work on the existing immigration rules/laws to make it easier and fairer for people who are both skilled and unskilled to immigrate.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 1:52 PM EDT

have you ever been to the texas border with mexico?

Lochnivar October 6 2011 1:55 PM EDT

have you ever been to the texas border with mexico?

I've seen it on TV... I'm guessing it is, if anything, more ominous in person?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 2:02 PM EDT

here is a wikipedia entry, i don't think it states that texas has about 1250 miles of the border. it is mostly a river border in texas. the river floods quite often. it ends in the ocean also!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_%E2%80%93_United_States_border

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 2:10 PM EDT

there are some massive lakes along the river as well, i think these two are the largest and you can see them easily on google maps:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fishboat/fish/recreational/lakes/falcon/

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fishboat/fish/recreational/lakes/amistad/

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 2:17 PM EDT

The US/Mexico border is around 2000 miles. Some silly perspective -- the Great Wall of China is around 5500 miles long.

But anyway, it is a long distance. And even with a wall, there is water on either end where boats can do a simple end run. Planes, too, though those are a lot easier to control.

I'm not saying it is impossible -- I've often wondered why a nation that spends 700 billion a year on the military can't come up with the means to get it done, in fact. But it isn't trivial, and the water-way-around impact would have to be assessed to see what sort of leak-around could be expected. The CA coastline is another 800+ miles. Though, I imagine finding a boat to do substantial smuggling is an order of magnitude more difficult than a land vehicle...

QBRanger October 6 2011 2:17 PM EDT

have you ever been to the texas border with mexico?

no, but I have been to the Arizona border. When I used to live in Phoenix.

And living in S. Florida, I have experience with illegals a plenty.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 2:34 PM EDT

the entire florida coastline is a bit shorter than texas' border with mexico.

the truth of the matter is though that people with little left to lose will find a way.

QBRanger October 6 2011 2:44 PM EDT

the truth of the matter is though that people with little left to lose will find a way.

True that.

But we do have laws on the book that are not enforced.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 2:50 PM EDT

the Great Wall of China is around 5500 miles long.

how did that work out for them? ; )

it will take a diplomatic solution with mexico i feel. we are neighbors, we should learn to act neighborly.

QBRanger October 6 2011 3:32 PM EDT

it will take a diplomatic solution with mexico i feel. we are neighbors, we should learn to act neighborly.

I think we both know and realize Mexico is not going to want to stop illegal immigration. They even signed on to the US governments lawsuit vs the states that tried to step up enforcement.

Mexico receives boatloads of money from illegal immigrants sending money back to their families in Mexico.

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 3:32 PM EDT

I think the Great Wall did very well when it was fully maintained and manned, but I am not a history expert (and it did have to last through a great many incidents).

What would you say we are doing to Mexico that is particularly UNneighborly, dude?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 3:41 PM EDT

i think the biggest problem with mexico at the current time is the fact that we are the market for most of their drugs. the best option for making money in mexico is illegal which makes the criminals in that country the ones with the money, power and firepower.

add in the fact that most of the guns are coming from us as well...

QBRanger October 6 2011 3:44 PM EDT

Best answer I could find about the Great Wall.

While the Wall probably stopped casual incursions by small groups of raiding nomads, the best that could be hoped was that it would slow down large armies and give the Empire a chance to mobilise its defences.

In fact, the troops and officers assigned to the Wall were notoriously ineffective, and there are a number of accounts of them betraying gates to the invading nomads. In addition, the cost of keeping the Wall manned and repaired was high, and the Empire often did not want to afford the expense.

In short, the costs probably outweighed the benefits.


While if we build a wall, we have many other options the Chinese did not. Such as aircraft to help monitor the area. Land mines if needed to stop the cartels. Binoculars and other benefits of technology.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 3:46 PM EDT

i like the final act though:

Paradoxically, the wall wasn't a fully effective line of defense. Various invaders managed to breach the barrier. Every sentry was a potential weak spot, because sentries could be bribed. In the mid-1600s at a well-fortified mountain pass near the Yellow Sea, a turncoat general simply let Manchu horse soldiers ride through. The invaders marched into Beijing, established a new dynasty, and did no further work on the Great Wall -- which had, after all, failed to hinder their invasion. During the next three centuries, much of the wall crumbled or was overgrown.

Lochnivar October 6 2011 3:46 PM EDT

While if we build a wall, we have many other options the Chinese did not. Such as aircraft to help monitor the area. Land mines if needed to stop the cartels. Binoculars and other benefits of technology.

They've developed landmines that can differentiate between the cartels and lost boy scouts or mothers carrying a their children?

QBRanger October 6 2011 3:48 PM EDT

They've developed landmines that can differentiate between the cartels and lost boy scouts or mothers carrying a their children?

Boy scouts and mothers have no business being in the middle of a desert, especially along the US/Mexico border. Unless they were trying to sneak into the country.

Just like boy scouts and mothers have no business being in front of any US army or air force base where there are mine fields and machinegun nests.

Demigod October 6 2011 3:52 PM EDT

Being realistic, there's absolutely no way landmines would be permitted as a border defense.

Lochnivar October 6 2011 3:53 PM EDT

Unless they were trying to sneak into the country.

And in that case they are fair game?

QBRanger October 6 2011 4:50 PM EDT

Yes,

And as an aside, this is a good thing for Alabama. Unemployment just went down due to the new law:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/alabama-official-says-tough-immigration-law-leading-to-self-deportation/

Lochnivar October 6 2011 5:02 PM EDT

And as an aside, this is a good thing for Alabama. Unemployment just went down due to the new law:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/alabama-official-says-tough-immigration-law-leading-to-self-deportation/

Assuming that this information is indeed accurate, and that those trends will continue in that region, I don't think that this methodology can be applied to the country at large.

Self deportation from Alabama to another state is a lot more palatable than self-deporting back across the border into a drug war of northern Mexico....

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 5:02 PM EDT

Wouldn't most illegal immigrants simply move to neighboring states? Easy access to four other states, one in each direction. Not to mention I imagine those other states have similar climates, so the same sorts of agricultural and construction jobs should be available.

I'm still trying to figure out how illegal immigrants are being counted in unemployment figures in the first place? Can an illegal immigrant get unemployment checks without proper documentation?

What is the rate of unemployment if illegal immigrants are left out? This thread Alabama would swing to a surplus of jobs if illegal immigrants were out of the picture. So they must be getting counted. How?

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 5:03 PM EDT

I'm nothing but an echo today.

QBRanger October 6 2011 5:05 PM EDT

I'm still trying to figure out how illegal immigrants are being counted in unemployment figures in the first place? Can an illegal immigrant get unemployment checks without proper documentation?

As I understand illegals are not counted in unemployment figures. But as illegals leave the state, that opens jobs for citizens, which lowers unemployment figures as calculated from less people collecting unemployment benefits. I am sure some illegals get benefits, especially those with fake SSN certificates and fake driver's licenses. But I would think this is the exception rather than the rule.

What is the rate of unemployment if illegal immigrants are left out? This thread Alabama would swing to a surplus of jobs if illegal immigrants were out of the picture. So they must be getting counted. How?

See above :)

QBRanger October 6 2011 5:08 PM EDT

Self deportation from Alabama to another state is a lot more palatable than self-deporting back across the border into a drug war of northern Mexico....

Why?

As more and more states pass laws like AL, there will be less places for illegals to go. But, until the government actually takes illegal immigration seriously, there will always be places for illegals to go like San Francisco a sanctuary city.

Mexico has to deal with the drug cartels and the corruption in the government and stop butting in our immigration debates with briefs on behalf of the USG vs states.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 5:09 PM EDT

it will be interesting to see if the long term effects are that our Hispanic population will congregate in friendly states and thus obtain more of a political majority in those states. this could translate to more concentrated power in the federal government as well.

much like the north south division during the civil rights era.

QBRanger October 6 2011 5:14 PM EDT

it will be interesting to see if the long term effects are that our Hispanic population will congregate in friendly states and thus obtain more of a political majority in those states. this could translate to more concentrated power in the federal government as well.

Indeed. But I do not forsee a radical change at the federal level. From 09-10 the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority (with the 2 independants) in both the Senate and House with the presidency. And they failed to get any immigration reform on the docket.

I doubt the feds will do anything other than try to keep the status quo and go after the states that try to enforce the law.

The Supreme Court will likely take up the Arizona and Alabama cases this term. And decide if the states can enact their own laws on this problem. Only then will be see true movement on the subject.

Lochnivar October 6 2011 5:16 PM EDT

Why?

Are you serious?

Given the choice between the increased risk of arrest and deportation in Alabama and the lower risk in Tennessee then sure, self deport out of Alabama. Make that choice between risk or arrest/deportation to Mexico and self-deporting to Mexico and I'm guessing that many would take a risk and stick around...

And that is why..

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 5:17 PM EDT

it will be interesting to see what the courts decide. i was referring more to the legal immigrants moving to less hostile states though and what effect that concentration will have on the future demographics for politics.

there are often repercussions to this kind of thing.

QBRanger October 6 2011 5:20 PM EDT

I don't know how many legal immigrants will pack up and move to another state.

I know a bunch of illegal ones will.

In Arizona, I have not read of many legal people leaving. Some will, of course in protest, but legal ones I know have stayed. And those I speak to in AZ are not as worked up over the new law as the media outlets try to make it.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 5:24 PM EDT

much of that will depend on if these were the final acts or the beginning of a more ominous trend in these states.

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 5:35 PM EDT

As I understand illegals are not counted in unemployment figures. But as illegals leave the state, that opens jobs for citizens, which lowers unemployment figures as calculated from less people collecting unemployment benefits. I am sure some illegals get benefits, especially those with fake SSN certificates and fake driver's licenses. But I would think this is the exception rather than the rule.

Yeah, I guess you are right, I was thinking unemployment was more of a "Total number of jobs" ratio'd against "total number of employees", and was thinking that ratio looks bad because total number of employees was being inflated by illegal immigrants.

When considering just OPEN jobs against people without jobs, that works out a little better, since the jobs simply aren't open until vacated.

QBsutekh137 October 6 2011 5:43 PM EDT

In Arizona, I have not read of many legal people leaving. Some will, of course in protest, but legal ones I know have stayed. And those I speak to in AZ are not as worked up over the new law as the media outlets try to make it.

For the second part there, don't you think the operative words are "those I speak to"? Do you speak to a lot of left-leaning liberals in AZ? *smile* That's not a bash, hot even a jab -- we all tend to speak with those who are more like us, whether that be because they are the ones around (a union member talking to other union members) or because we just feel more comfortable (naturally gravitating toward like-minded individuals because conversation feels easier). At least, usually in a slightly disproportionate amount. That's natural. Conservative folks I know tend to talk to other conservatives, and they tend to talk about Fox News -- because that's what they watch. But then, I don't do a lot of random sampling to find the conservatives who very much dislike Fox News and probably share a lot of common ground with me.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 5:50 PM EDT

i also think it is ridiculous to add more responsibilities to the public school system that really have nothing to do with their goal of education. there are so many little things that have been tacked on to the responsibility of the public schools that is no wonder we are falling behind in actual education.

here is another law from texas that bothers me in a similar fashion regarding the patient doctor relationship:

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/abortion-texas/courtroom-battle-begins-on-abortion-sonogram-law/

my question to the conservatives out there: you often state you want smaller government with less regulation and more personal freedom yet you get behind these types of legislation with glee. do you really want smaller government or just your government?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 5:54 PM EDT

the gay marriage issue is another example. many laws were created in order to protect the sanctity of marriage and or create civil unions.

QBRanger October 6 2011 6:46 PM EDT

Do you speak to a lot of left-leaning liberals in AZ?

Not a lot, but some middle class people I knew when I used to work there. People with jobs like Radiology Tech or nurse.

my question to the conservatives out there: you often state you want smaller government with less regulation and more personal freedom yet you get behind these types of legislation with glee. do you really want smaller government or just your government?

I am a true conservative. I want the government out of the bedroom and out of my personal freedom. I am against abortion as a personal choice but agree it is ultimately the woman's choice until the fetus is of age where it could survive outside the mother's womb.

As to the school issue- I think the schools do have a responsibility to look for illegals. Why? Since it is my tax dollars subsidizing these illegals. They screen for people who live in the correct districts before they can attend school. They make sure kids get the appropriate vaccinations. They should screen to make sure the kids are legal to attend school.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 6:53 PM EDT

where does the funding come for that?

this reminds me of local issue. it was more expensive in local school districts to screen for the free breakfast program than to just make it available to all.

do we cut of our nose to spite our face?

QBRanger October 6 2011 6:54 PM EDT

Sometimes there is a cost to doing the legal thing.

We could easily open the borders, saving million of dollars in ICE, but is that the right thing?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 6:56 PM EDT

if it applied to doctors, would you be okay with the state government telling you that you have to now screen for illegal immigrants or you could be fined/charged. are you okay with state taxes going up to fund such measures? what if the cost is more expensive than the alternative?

these laws cost quite a bit of money to implement especially given the legal challenges, if you knew that a new law would cost more than just leaving things as they are, would you still support it?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 6:58 PM EDT

We could easily open the borders, saving million of dollars in ICE, but is that the right thing?

you justified the action regarding schools due to the cost to you as a taxpayer. you tell me, is it the money then or the principle?

QBRanger October 6 2011 7:07 PM EDT

if it applied to doctors, would you be okay with the state government telling you that you have to now screen for illegal immigrants or you could be fined/charged. are you okay with state taxes going up to fund such measures? what if the cost is more expensive than the alternative?

If taxes went up for everyone and not only the "rich", I would be open to it.

As a doctor I am not a public servant. We already have e-verify as one way of finding illegals or stopping them from getting jobs. If I had to use it, I would, if a law was passed that required me. However, as a physician most of my work comes from the ER and I cannot not treat someone based upon their immigration status.

these laws cost quite a bit of money to implement especially given the legal challenges, if you knew that a new law would cost more than just leaving things as they are, would you still support it?

If something is illegal, certainly.

you justified the action regarding schools due to the cost to you as a taxpayer. you tell me, is it the money then or the principle?

That was one reason, not the sum of all reasons.

But let me ask you:

Would you let the borders be wide open if it saved money on enforcement?

Remember there are other reasons including national security to enforce the borders.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 7:19 PM EDT

so you are saying letting children go to school is comparable to throwing the borders wide open?

i think i got my answer though, we do cut our nose off to spite our face when principle is involved and that is also when it is okay to enlarge our government. does that sum it up pretty well?

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 6 2011 7:29 PM EDT

Remember there are other reasons including national security to enforce the borders.

So back to the racial profiling point: I, as an occasionally expensive looking white woman, paid $50 to get into Mexico and came back again with nary a wink. Whether my tote was bursting with coke or fissile material, who knows? Nobody bothered to check, which (I'm okay with assuming) was because I look like an American, where American = not a terrorist.

Confusing the "we got here first, so nah-nah-a-boo-boo to you" issue with the "mad bombers are following coyotes across the river" issue is almost as absurd as the landmine comment.

QBRanger October 6 2011 7:32 PM EDT

so you are saying letting children go to school is comparable to throwing the borders wide open?

I never typed that. You are making an assumption that is incorrect.

I was saying if it was only money involved, would you not advocate open borders if it saved money in the long run. Analogous to your statement about schools enforcing the ILLEGAL immigration laws on the books. Illegal immigrants do cost us money using the public school system. Will the cost saving compensate for the cost involved in checking? I don't know. But in the end, it is illegal immigration.

i think i got my answer though, we do cut our nose off to spite our face when principle is involved and that is also when it is okay to enlarge our government. does that sum it up pretty well?

If it is illegal, certainly we made need to spend money to enforce laws about ILLEGAL immigration.

And I have my answer about your point of view. If it saves us money, then forget about the laws. Just keep the ones that save us money. Do I have your thoughts correct? Since it will cost money to have the schools check for illegals, they should not do it. By that statement, why should the police or DMV or businesses check illegal status? Does that not also cost money?

QBRanger October 6 2011 7:39 PM EDT

Confusing the "we got here first, so nah-nah-a-boo-boo to you" issue with the "mad bombers are following coyotes across the river" issue is almost as absurd as the landmine comment.

So I take it you are an open borders person. Just let everyone and anyone in with total disregard to the existing laws? If you do not like the law, just to hell with it? I suspect the rule of law means little to you if you disagree with it.

So back to the racial profiling point: I, as an occasionally expensive looking white woman, paid $50 to get into Mexico and came back again with nary a wink. Whether my tote was bursting with coke or fissile material, who knows? Nobody bothered to check, which (I'm okay with assuming) was because I look like an American, where American = not a terrorist.

I have been to Mexico and have occasionally got searched going both ways. As a white male. I have seen Hispanics get waived though coming to America while I get almost stripped searched. I guess you just got lucky or just pontificated long enough they just got fed up and waved you along.

QBRanger October 6 2011 7:43 PM EDT

national security to enforce the borders.

Including Texas farmers who get killed along the border. The tourists that get killed jet skiing along the border. The drug traffickers and human traffickers coming to America.

All national security issues. It is not just the terrorist with a bomb. I thought that was intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

Demigod October 6 2011 8:23 PM EDT

I, as an occasionally expensive looking white woman... - Bast

Wait, so do you sell yourself, or just rent yourself out for an hour?

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] October 6 2011 8:39 PM EDT

I'd like to try to take a stab at this. First thing, I expect that the border searching will be systematic as in every x person will be searched unless there is suspicious activity of some sort.

Next for the main thing. You really can't base these things entirely on monetary value or principle. Its going to be a mix of both and other things. For instance I personally would disagree with requiring schools to check the immigration status of students and their parents, by this I mean for k-12 grades. It probably isn't the child's choice on where they live and from a humanitarian standpoint I find it would be bad to deny these children education. Now the law says that it won't deny them but if the school is required to look into it it will scare a lot of people away.

Also from another view point is security and safety. Requiring the schools to look into it may actually increase the danger rather than decrease it. A border guard and such obviously increases the relative safety. For the record though if it wouldn't increase the danger to open up the border and it would save money I would be for it. But this is not what would happen so its not a viable option at the moment.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 9:50 PM EDT

actually i am saying that public schools are there for public education and shouldn't have anything to do with citizenship checks. they have enough on their plate without performing other duties. they are also not the best ones to perform these duties and they have no training in the matter.

nor does any of the other entities who are going to be held responsible with this asinine law. if the state is so worried about illegal immigrants, then create their own immigration task force and go for it.

all that this law does is allow the government to come in and harass its legal citizens for doing what the state is not able or willing to do. they either cannot do it or cannot afford to do it so they will just punish others for not doing it. it turns people against one another and creates divisiveness.

i really don't see how anyone who says they want to control the growth of governmental powers, respects personal liberties, control rampant spending or wants less regulation can agree with these kind of measures.

if i got it wrong then explain this to me clearly. i thought you said it was a financial issue. then i thought you said it was more about the principal.

you do keep saying it is illegal. i get that but this law just created a whole bunch of new illegal things as well. things that legal citizens and even churches can get into trouble for.

QBRanger October 6 2011 10:22 PM EDT

actually i am saying that public schools are there for public education and shouldn't have anything to do with citizenship checks.

Why not? They check on residency for purposes of eligibility. I have no idea how difficult it is to check a persons legal status, but I do not think that it is very difficult. And perhaps for the first couple weeks every new school year, there would be a lot of checking. But after that, how many new kids come during the year. Not many.

they are also not the best ones to perform these duties and they have no training in the matter.

That is likely correct. But not every teacher needs to do this. Someone in administration who determines residency can be trained and be responsible.

all that this law does is allow the government to come in and harass its legal citizens for doing what the state is not able or willing to do. they either cannot do it or cannot afford to do it so they will just punish others for not doing it. it turns people against one another and creates divisiveness.

Certainly divisiveness. Those that want the rule of law followed vs those that do not. That are willing to turn their back on a law they personally do not like. Instead of using our normal governmental channels to change it. But then realizing most of the country does not feel as they do since the law has not been changed or repealed. So those who just choose to ignore it.

I would love to be able to ignore the rules I do not like. How about stupid drunk driving laws? All they do is take the fun out of a nice drunken stupor. Or the laws against insider trading. Heck, just let them make money, I have enough. (sarcasm alert!!!)

i really don't see how anyone who says they want to control the growth of governmental powers, respects personal liberties, control rampant spending or wants less regulation can agree with these kind of measures.

I believe in upholding the laws of the United States of America.

if i got it wrong then explain this to me clearly. i thought you said it was a financial issue. then i thought you said it was more about the principal.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I stated that was one issue. Not the only one.

you do keep saying it is illegal. i get that but this law just created a whole bunch of new illegal things as well. things that legal citizens and even churches can get into trouble for.

Yes, that is correct. I did state that I dislike Section 5. However, the federal judge who recently ruled to uphold most of the law blocked the section you seem to be most worked up about.

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/09/28/judge-upholds-most-of-alabamas-tough-immigration-law-victory-on-h-b-56/

I applaud the Judges ruling. I think it was very fair (from Ranger's point of view only <---- had to point that out specifically as others have) and still saves most of what the law attempts to accomplish.

Look, I get it also. There are huge differences in how we want to approach immigration. Realize that I am not against legal immigration. But letting people just flaunt the law and then eventually get rewarded is just insulting.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 10:35 PM EDT

I believe in upholding the laws of the United States of America.

so that overrides the financial and principal issues or all of it together?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 6 2011 10:38 PM EDT

i am not worked up, i asked what i thought was a fairly simple question and am just trying to get an answer. every time i think i have one you say that i am putting words in your mouth. then i ask for a clear answer and you go off on tangents. i am still just trying to understand.

QBRanger October 6 2011 11:27 PM EDT

What exactly are you trying to understand?

You asked about the financial part of immigration. I stated my opinion. However it is not the only or overriding part of the whole immigration equation.

so that overrides the financial and principal issues or all of it together?

I think I made that quite clear in earlier posts.

If not, I am sorry at my poor use of the English language. I am nowhere as cute with language as others in CB. I am more of a science/math person so sometimes I can have problems explaining myself beyond any doubt.

Illegal immigration is of course, illegal. If we, as a nation, choose to disregard whatever laws we want, that sets a bad precedent. What laws will we disregard next? It takes money to enforce laws. Like the laws about drug use and abuse. While I disagree with the law criminalizing marijuana, I still respect those laws and do not use it. If it is legalized, perhaps then I will revisit my college days.

Illegal immigration is costing us money. It is costing us jobs. I may be completely wrong but in all my readings this is what I have read. If having schools watch for illegals costs more than it saves, I am ok with it.

If you do not like the law, I understand. But, I cannot understand willfully breaking the law and then getting rewarded. By amnesty, by getting in-state college tuition, by getting SS benefits etc...

To me, and me alone, in the world according to Ranger and Ranger alone, it is horrible to see.

If as a nation, we change the law and make it open borders, fine. But that will not happen. The Democrats, proponents of amnesty and open borders, could not even get a comprehensive immigration bill through Congress when they had control of Congress and the Presidency.

This AL law is in no way supposed to encourage or back racial profiling. If it did, the ACLU would be all over it. In fact, a federal judge upheld most of the law. And did a great job in shutting down the parts that were obviously wrong.

If racial profiling becomes commonplace due to this new law, I will be one of the first to call them out on it and demand it be stopped.

Mikel October 6 2011 11:49 PM EDT

I side with Ranger on this one. Illegal is illegal, you should leave.
I would take it one step further, if you are here illegally and your baby is born here then your baby is also an illegal. It will solve the problems with Pregnant women crossing the border just to have their child born here.
And my wife is here legally.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 7 2011 2:16 AM EDT

Willfully breaking bad laws is as American as apple pie, there is no better way to make it clear how stupid they are than demanding they be enforced. I'd LOVE to see this country attempt to prosecute the undocumented just so the resulting crash clued at least some folks into how dependent we are on migrant workers and their families.

Read up on the mass deportations of the thirties and what it did...

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 7 2011 7:12 AM EDT


I object to you, Novice!

I do not want to pay $26 per pound for chicken. I do not want to clean my own pool. I do not want to manage my own lawn care. I do not want to bus my own dishes in restaurants and bring my own sheets to hotels. I do not want to stop eating fruits and vegetables. I do not want to be on a roster at every store I frequent, so they can tell me when it's my night to clean the store. I do not want to vacuum my work area before I leave for the day. I do not want to take my turn cleaning the office bathrooms. I do not want to put my own luggage on the plane nor do I want to queue up at the back of the plane to get my luggage back off of it again.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 7:32 AM EDT

the question was why do the people claiming to want smaller government, less regulation, less spending, etc. laud efforts such as this which only increase all of those things?

so far we have financial reasons along with principals. now we add because it is illegal we need more laws making it more illegal for everyone involved?

Soxjr October 7 2011 7:40 AM EDT

It's amazing how we go all off on illegals, when if I remember correctly we are all here illegally. Unless you can trace your ancestors to people that actually started here on this continent. Yes I'm aware there are laws and we should abide by them, but I also think some very dumb laws need to be challenged. I have been on a bus and seen some of this racial profiling at it's best. Border patrol comes on the bus at certain areas and asks everyone if they are legal or not. Nothing more or less, unless they just think you might be illegal. Which of course is anyone with an accent or skin color they don't like. Then it's all about papers and proof, even if the person is legal.

I have worked in a chicken plant in Oklahoma and plenty of workers there were illegal. Then they came through one day and raided the place and it's amazing how long it took to fill the workforce there to keep doing the job needed with legal people. Funny how some Americans don't want to do certain jobs. I worked there because I needed a paycheck. No matter how bad I thought it was, but yet it sucks to not be able to go to work because they got rid of the illegals and the business couldn't finish production for a week until they got the manpower to continue.

Mikel October 7 2011 8:53 AM EDT

OB you are off on your times.
Parents/Siblings/Spouse's children over 18 take 6-10 years to be processed.
Spouse/children of spouse under 18 about a year.

It's all fun and games until Your SSN gets used by an illegal so they can work and the IRS comes back on you and tells you that you did not claim all of your income on your taxes, or the government denies your retired grandma her retirement benefits because she's still making too much money annually.

This is just one big reason we have a process in place. Another one that holds up the process is when the person has a "common name" or has a police record in their home country. I do not want people here that have already broke the laws in their own country (I'm referring to felonies).

http://employeralliance.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Get-a-Work-Visa-to-the-USA

Once you are in the country on one of these visa's, you can file an AOS (Adjustment of Status) and get it extended or start the process of becoming a citizen. Don't believe me? I know quite a few people that have come here on J1 visa and extended it. It's not as difficult as you think, just takes time and a little bit of money.

Back to the article. If there is a surplus of jobs there once the economy picks up, then people from other states where the is still a shortage will move there to fill those jobs.

Now to racial profiling:
Can anyone give me an estimate of the number of illegals here by skin color?
If the majority is Hispanic, then they should be targeted the most. It's just common sense there, but they want to scream "racial profiling."

QBRanger October 7 2011 9:42 AM EDT

the question was why do the people claiming to want smaller government, less regulation, less spending, etc. laud efforts such as this which only increase all of those things?

It seems you have not read any of my posts. O well.

so far we have financial reasons along with principals. now we add because it is illegal we need more laws making it more illegal for everyone involved?

More laws due to the federal governments failure to enforce the ones already on the books.

QBRanger October 7 2011 9:45 AM EDT

Willfully breaking bad laws is as American as apple pie, there is no better way to make it clear how stupid they are than demanding they be enforced.

From the same group of people who are demanding the wall street bankers go to jail and get prosecuted to the maximum for their role in the recent financial crisis.

Hypocrisy aisle 1.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 10:12 AM EDT

I would take it one step further, if you are here illegally and your baby is born here then your baby is also an illegal. It will solve the problems with Pregnant women crossing the border just to have their child born here.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I wasn't going to post any more on this thread, but this has to be the most utterly ridiculous thing I've read in months... Talk about going off the reservation in terms of the foundational laws of this country! YIKES! You want to do away with naturalization (or at least add a layer of bureaucracy to it, a layer of "if"?) (please don't tell me you think the Individual Mandate is terrible and ruining our country though -- I won't be able to handle it after you've just used the Constitution to clean up after defecating).

Scenario: A pregnant woman (US citizen) shoots someone and is convicted right before the baby is born. She's in to jail for life. Her civil rights are reduced as a prisoner, she cannot even vote. She gives birth to a bouncing baby boy in prison. Why should that baby be a naturalized citizen? His mother cannot even vote, and she has done something heinous and illegal. Why does he get to be naturalized more than anyone else born on the soil?

Scenario: A pregnant woman is here on an H1-B visa, and the baby is born 2 minutes after midnight on the first day of which the visa expires. Ship 'em out, folks! Thanks for your work! Now you are soiled tissue!

Scenario: An immigrant gets married to get her green card. She has a baby while still in the probationary stage of getting the green card, but it is still in process -- not really a citizen yet. Baby is born, and she later passes all the tests and citizenship is granted. But sorry, junior, your mom wasn't a full, legal citizen when you were born. Bye-ah!

Scenario: Just like above, but the woman DOESN'T pass her tests, so now she DEFINITELY isn't/wasn't a citizen, and her lead-up time to it was completely bogus. Again, sorry junior, we don't use the soil any more because that would be too simple. Bye-uh!

At the very least, you are building a very-steep slope and covering it in grease for that particular aspect of citizenship. Not to mention you're making an issue out of something that accounts for what I can only believe is a tiny, tiny fraction of immigration. Do you have a citation for the massive number of citizens that we have up in here stealing our jobs and free-loading off the system after being born here on a wet beach?

(And who cares if your wife is legal or not? Why did that come up? My wife is legal, too. Luckily she was born on American soil with no conceivable road-blocks in place to her citizenship. Because, very luckily, the naturalization rule is very, very simple, just like the founders of the country envisioned.)

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 10:13 AM EDT

Bast,

So back to the racial profiling point: I, as an occasionally expensive looking white woman...

This hypothetical is absurd. "Occasionally" expensive? Patently false. You ALWAYS look opulent.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 10:21 AM EDT

Ranger,

Quick meta-question in response to:

So I take it you are an open borders person. Just let everyone and anyone in with total disregard to the existing laws? If you do not like the law, just to hell with it? I suspect the rule of law means little to you if you disagree with it.

Must everything ALWAYS be one way or another? If someone disagrees with you, they immediately want to give free hand-outs, open the borders, and disregard all existing laws?

Might I ask how you distribute diagnoses to patients on your radiology tests (or whatever)? Do you just walk in and tell the patient they will "alive" or "dead"?

Why does it appear to be so difficult for you to stay away from the extremes, for even a moment? Is common ground such anathema in your eyes? To put it another way, how does it make you feel when someone else assumes you are all 100% right-wing, you must love the war on drugs, worship Fox News, and probably kill abortion doctors? Are you OK with that unnecessary polarization?

Because that's the tone you're taking in lines like the above, and it doesn't add ANY value to the discussion. Where did you learn to communicate with others in that way?

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 10:28 AM EDT

Ranger stated:

As to the school issue- I think the schools do have a responsibility to look for illegals. Why? Since it is my tax dollars subsidizing these illegals. They screen for people who live in the correct districts before they can attend school. They make sure kids get the appropriate vaccinations. They should screen to make sure the kids are legal to attend school.

So, additional screening, at taxpayer expense, in order to help our society overall by preventing illegal immigration.

How is that different from additional IRS screening, at taxpayer expense, in order to make sure everyone has health insurance so that everyone is paying their way and helping achieve universal health coverage?

I recall one of your sticking points about the new health care plan is that the IRS would be having to perform all these new bureaucratic tasks in order to enforce various new rules. Now it turns out you are FOR such bureaucracy in this case. (perhaps now you understand why some folks are concerned that you are FOR this "bigger government" idea).

The only logical conclusion I can personally draw is that you don't think everyone having health care is for the good of the country as much as you think keeping illegal immigrants out would be (even though it is causing construction projects, for whatever reason, to go dormant in OB's area.) Is that a fair assessment?

QBRanger October 7 2011 10:34 AM EDT

ou must love the war on drugs, worship Fox News, and probably kill abortion doctors?

Hate it, watch it but watch MSNBC just as much, am for abortion rights even though I personally am against abortion.

The rest of your post is just too stupid for me to address since I did that in posts before.

I would take it one step further, if you are here illegally and your baby is born here then your baby is also an illegal. It will solve the problems with Pregnant women crossing the border just to have their child born here.

Sorry to break it to you Sut, but that is not a solitary opinion. There are plenty of people who think the 14th amendment is perverted in its application. Some scholars believe it was enacted to solve the problems with blacks getting citizenship after the Civil War. In fact, if a diplomat of China has a baby in the US, that baby is NOT a US citizen.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/

It is not a huge problem, but one that is growing and is a developing industry for some.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 10:35 AM EDT

i did read your posts. you have yet to give a clear answer and every time i think i understand and post what i think i understand you claim i put words in your mouth.

your explanations aren't clear and sometimes even contradictory:


I believe in upholding the laws of the United States of America.

More laws due to the federal governments failure to enforce the ones already on the books.


so far i have gotten that some of the reasoning for creating bigger government is financial, the principal of the matter and because something is illegal already. the last one might be meaning that if one government (federal) isn't doing its job as defined by certain people then it is certainly fine to expand another government (state) to step in?

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 10:38 AM EDT

Ranger stated:

I believe in upholding the laws of the United States of America.

That's funny -- I didn't see you say anything in regards to Mikel's comment that would overturn one of the most foundational rules in our founding documents -- naturalization.

You regularly accuse me of cherry-picking (heck, even when I'm not). So did you just not happen to read Mikel's comment?

I think your level of cherry-picking goes all the way to the Constitution, at times.

QBRanger October 7 2011 10:41 AM EDT

How is that different from additional IRS screening, at taxpayer expense, in order to make sure everyone has health insurance so that everyone is paying their way and helping achieve universal health coverage?

Because the individual mandate is illegal. Or will be found illegal. And part of the double talk the Democrats used in shoving this law through was that it was revenue neutral. Which of course we now know is falso.

The extra cost to schools is to help enforce laws that are on the books that are ILLEGAL immigration.

The only logical conclusion I can personally draw is that you don't think everyone having health care is for the good of the country as much as you think keeping illegal immigrants out would be (even though it is causing construction projects, for whatever reason, to go dormant in OB's area.) Is that a fair assessment?

No, not in the fair ballpark. There are better ways to get more people covered with healthcare. Better than the government taking control of all medical decisions.

Now, who is black and white. You seem to believe that only a government control of the healthcare system is the only way to get more people covered. I believe in free market approaches.

I wonder why you choose to follow only those laws you like? Is it acceptable for citizens to pick and choose what laws they want to obey? So the bankers on Wall Street should get off Scott free since they were only white collar crimes, nothing big like immigration laws.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 10:41 AM EDT

The rest of your post is just too stupid for me to address since I did that in posts before.

So, trying to understand your polarized attitude and lack of tact and respect for fellow discussers is "too stupid".

You are extremely, extremely rude. You make me sad.

QBRanger October 7 2011 10:42 AM EDT

Sut read my 1034 post on Mikel's naturalization comment.

I feel the same as he.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 10:43 AM EDT

Now, who is black and white. You seem to believe that only a government control of the healthcare system is the only way to get more people covered. I believe in free market approaches.

Where did I say that? I didn't. I leave the false dichotomies and polarizing opinion to those who do it best. I suck at it.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 10:48 AM EDT

Ranger stated, in regards to a comment by Mikel:

Sorry to break it to you Sut, but that is not a solitary opinion.

Why on earth would I care if the opinion is solitary or not? How does the number of people who believe something address my scenarios (because you certainly did not).

If you agree with Mikel, then we have absolute proof that you are cherry-picking the Constitution. And it doesn't matter how many people agree with what you and Mikel think (well, unless want to get the Constitution changed and can get roughly two-thirds of the country to agree with you). Being born on US soil makes one a citizen. That is currently in the Constitution, in a couple spots. If you don't like it, then you are going against the Constitution.

That means that either the individual mandate is also fine to go against the Constitution, or you are inconsistent. (what do you know, some things DO end up coming down to just two choices!)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 10:49 AM EDT

kinda like either wanting smaller government or just your government? ; )

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 10:54 AM EDT

I suppose, dude, only maybe a bit more specific/clear. I could never make heads or tails of the big vs. small gov't (there was never any consistency to glom onto, and that's not just reserved for Ranger -- I see a lot of gov't size hypocrisy in a lot of people), but this is pretty cut and dried. Ranger doesn't think what is in the Constitution is important, in this case.

QBRanger October 7 2011 11:02 AM EDT

And yet everyone is not answering my question. Typical.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 11:23 AM EDT

Which question, specifically? I'd be happy to answer, and apologize for not doing so. I will either answer, admit a lack of knowledge, or try to work toward some understanding with you if you let me know the question or which post to read for context.

QBRanger October 7 2011 11:32 AM EDT

I wonder why you choose to follow only those laws you like? Is it acceptable for citizens to pick and choose what laws they want to obey? So the bankers on Wall Street should get off Scott free since they were only white collar crimes, nothing big like immigration laws.

That question.

As far as you scenarios about the 14th amendment-if a mother is here illegally, the baby IMO should be a citizen of the country of the mother.

As far as people on visa's and in prison, those cases likely need to be adjucated on a case by case basis. IE, if someone is here on a visa and willingly overstays they visa, that is different then someone who did not get the proper documentation in by a fault not their own.

Legal immigrants and those with a green card are treated like citizens for the purpose of birthright citizenship for their kids.

Ranger doesn't think what is in the Constitution is important, in this case.

While I do not agree with certain things and interpretations of the constitution I respect it and the laws of the land.

One SC decision that I believe was horrible was Kelo v. City of New London. A horrible decision. But I respect it and will follow it.

If Obamacare is upheld and we need 25k more IRS agents to enforce it, so be it. That is something we have to pay for. Even though I 100% disagree with almost the entire law.

But again,

Why should we obey some laws and not others?

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 11:56 AM EDT

Ranger,

Thanks for reiterating the questions, and again, sorry I didn't respond (I honestly thought these were largely rhetorical, but will address now):

I wonder why you choose to follow only those laws you like?

I don't only follow laws I "like", so I'm not sure how to answer the question.

But this is a fairly broad idea. Gandhi and his followers chose not to follow a lot of laws. It is basically a matter that runs a lot deeper than the context of this discussion, and it's a lot about consistency. I don't honestly see anyone here saying "obey this law but don't obey that, and that's good". I think it is more likely that sentiments are getting mis-interpreted.

Is it acceptable for citizens to pick and choose what laws they want to obey?

It is, as long as they face the consequences. Again, consider the civil disobedience argument. Rosa Parks broke the rules, and I assume you have no problem with that, especially considering that her lawful political power (as a black woman in the Jim Crow South) was just about zero. It was all she could do, and she faced the music.

By and large, though, from a consistency standpoint, no, it is not OK to cherry-pick what laws to follow and which not to. If one does so, one is making oneself a de facto, immediate legislator, and that is not one's job. The most one can do is go the route of the judiciary and see how the courts interpret the law in their specific case (bench legislation, so to speak).

So the bankers on Wall Street should get off Scott free since they were only white collar crimes, nothing big like immigration laws.

I don't know what this is in relation to. I have some fairly strong feelings about what certain institutions did, and I do believe many, many people knew what they were doing was wrong (and yes, I mean immoral). Sadly, though, God (or the worms in the earth) will have to sort that out because I am not sure what specific laws were broken, and too many people can claim too much ignorance (like Moody's, an organization with too much unaccountable power).

Back to immigration, and do de-conflate a few things:

Like I said, I haven't seen anyone say "OPEN THE BORDERS! ALL LAWS OFF THE BOOKS!" I have seen the following from the level-headed folks on the thread:

-- Immigration laws are too onerous, expensive, and complicated. Some reform would be nice.
-- If someone is brought in for questioning or real breaking of the law, and if that "bringing in" is in no way (and can in no way) be based on race (like someone robs a bank and so gets their background checked), then it is understandable that that person will be found out and the law applied to them. But read the first point...we'd like reform of those original laws, and we can work from there.
-- If someone can be picked out, profiled (either by word of law or by a "you know it is going to happen" way), I disagree with that. Because we are discriminating creatures by default. That's right folks, I believe that no one on earth is truly 100% color, gender, orientation, and age blind. I am talking about the base word "discriminate", to tell the difference between two things. We are all that way, we are born that way, and we have evolved that way. It is how we survive. That's why, in my opinion, it is so very important we don't let that ability to discriminate turn into _prejudice_. For me, this AL law sounds like it goes further than I would like in that regard, and we can agree to disagree on that, if you wish.
-- Locking down the border more is fine with me. Again, back to the first point. Perhaps if rules are made more sensible and less bureaucratic, we can hone in on some middle ground. What we don't need are landmines, a Mexican occupation, or radical changes to the Constitution overturning birth-on-soil naturalization.

Please let me know if I have side-stepped or your questions too much or gone off on too much of a tangent here, and I will try to explain further.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 12:01 PM EDT

As far as people on visa's and in prison, those cases likely need to be adjucated on a case by case basis. IE, if someone is here on a visa and willingly overstays they visa, that is different then someone who did not get the proper documentation in by a fault not their own.

So, spend more of my tax money in court costs and lawyers and red tape for something that really isn't even an issue? As the payer of those taxes, I say: "Leave the law on the books as is, keep it simple, and stop adding more bureaucracy. Full stop."

Don't you think that giving in to these sorts of "case-by-case" basis ideas is what has made immigration policy more an more complex over the years? I believe in K-I-S-S (Keep it simple, silly), not just for the current state, but to prevent the inevitable increase of more complexity once the less-than-simple floodgates are opened to the future.

In that regard, this one is a no-brainer for me, and it is hard for me to believe anyone for "smaller government" would disagree (but that's just me, it's your Constitutional right to disagree, and my thought on the matter are immaterial as far as your opinion).

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 1:11 PM EDT

let me try!

I wonder why you choose to follow only those laws you like?

how do you know what i choose to follow and what i don't?

QBRanger October 7 2011 1:13 PM EDT

reading this thread it is quite obvious you do not want to follow illegal immigration laws. Am I incorrect about that?

Or the new Alabama law that was just upheld by a federal judge?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 1:22 PM EDT

reading this thread it is quite obvious you do not want to follow illegal immigration laws.

based on what exactly? i said we need to be more neighborly. i also said that schools should not be made to perform immigration duties at it isn't their function.

you seem to assume much in these debates. if someone disagrees with you they must be the polar opposite. sometimes people debate just to see how others justify themselves, that is my main reason. also, in my experience most people are more moderate. there are few true extremists, that is another reason i like to question you. it is interesting to me to see how extreme your views can be.

QBRanger October 7 2011 1:35 PM EDT

it is interesting to me to see how extreme your views can be.

That we enforce out current immigration laws? I will certain be extreme in that regard.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 7 2011 1:35 PM EDT

I share dudemus's same fascination for exploring others extreme views, as I myself have pretty moderate views on a lot of things, regardless of what you might have already painted me with.

QBRanger October 7 2011 1:42 PM EDT

I can call myself moderate also.

Does not mean I am moderate.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 1:44 PM EDT

That we enforce out current immigration laws? I will certain be extreme in that regard.

Indeed, even meta-extreme. Because landmines has to be the dumbest idea anyone (older than six) has ever come up with for immigration control. Maybe lasers. But again, that's probably an imaginative six-year-old talking.

If you are this extreme about immigration, I can only assume you think all the following should be punishable by death, even allowing for collateral damage (like landmines): rape, murder, hate crimes, treason, any remotely terroristic act. If not, why not? Landmines don't leave any grey area when it comes to enforcement, and all we are talking about is an illegal immigrant. Surely these other felonies deserve similar treatment (death)?

If not, why not? Be specific. It would be terribly inconsistent to be so worked up over immigration and not address these other heinous crimes with similar verve, don't you think?

Or am I being "too stupid" again in using such a logical, consistent line of questioning?

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 1:45 PM EDT

I can call myself moderate also.

Does not mean I am moderate.

So what does that have to do with Verifex then?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 1:46 PM EDT

in your opinion is that the most extreme thing you have ever said on cb regarding political discussions?

i actually try my damnedest to not show my opinion on most topics unless directly asked. it goes back to something my grandfather said many years ago. it was something to the effect of "you can tell those whose opinions aren't worth a damn because they are the ones giving it away freely all the time."

i don't say that as a judgment call on anyone else, but rather just something i try to take in mind before giving my opinion on topics, i do try to see if i am being asked or if i am just giving. i don't always succeed though as we all know, especially in regards to certain game mechanics.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 1:47 PM EDT

Oh, by the way, I answered your questions willingly and civilly, if you want to get back on topic (rather than casting vague aspersions with no solid backing). Sounds like it might be more useful? I'll be around!

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 7 2011 1:49 PM EDT

Ranger, enforcing immigration laws is not the extreme view, it's all the other stuff.

It's the "I want all public institutions to serve my whims".

Or all the rhetoric you spread about rich people being persecuted by the government.

Or how you have no shame in rolling out the constant parade of talking points that only serves to make others roll their eyes (I imagine, since I can't actually see others in real life).

It's the subtle lack of compassion for the downtrodden.

It's the view that some might describe as notably "selfish" that successful people don't owe anything, or "very little" back to society.

It's the view that because you worked hard and succeeded that everybody must have the exact same opportunities to succeed as you did.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 1:49 PM EDT

i actually try my damnedest to not show my opinion on most topics unless directly asked. it goes back to my something my grandfather said many years ago. it was something to the effect of "you can tell those whose opinions aren't worth a damn because they are the ones giving it away freely all the time."

I like that one! Sadly, I do fall into that category more often than I'd like! *smile* Trying to get better with age, though.

QBRanger October 7 2011 2:03 PM EDT

Ranger, enforcing immigration laws is not the extreme view, it's all the other stuff.

Other stuff you do not agree with. As someone on the other point of view, the liberals side.

It's the "I want all public institutions to serve my whims".

Where the heck did you get that one?

Or all the rhetoric you spread about rich people being persecuted by the government.

Seriously? Have you not listened to Obama the last 3 years? Talking about the evil millionaires and billionaires that do not pay their "fair share"? Really? Nothing Bueller?

Or how you have no shame in rolling out the constant parade of talking points that only serves to make others roll their eyes (I imagine, since I can't actually see others in real life).

I roll my eyes at the lefts talking points. As the only real true conservative that types how he feels on CB, I expect no less than ridicule from the leftists in the forums.

It's the subtle lack of compassion for the downtrodden.

Like America is the land of opportunity and you can be successful. You do not need the government to baby you along.

I have been downtrodden. Lower middle class. My wife for a time lived on the streets as a child. With a mother who was a drug addict. Yet we both succeeded. Went to school, learned, studied and took chances.

I have always stated there are people we do really need to help. People who have little chance due to their very unfortunate circumstances. But you clearly did not want to read that. A typical liberal who thinks all conservatives are heartless beasts out for their own selfish goals.

It's the view that some might describe as notably "selfish" that successful people don't owe anything, or "very little" back to society.

Again you have your facts wrong. I give plenty to society. I do not have to describe every charity I help or all the free work I do at the hospital. But your thinking that all the "rich" are selfish people who only care for themselves is just plain insulting.

I pay a lot in taxes. Taxes that go to an ineffective government run by bureaucrats that care nothing but for their own political careers. While 47% pay zero federal income tax. How about others being selfish asking to pay zero federal taxes, wanting the "rich" to pay more so they get more free stuff?

It's the view that because you worked hard and succeeded that everybody must have the exact same opportunities to succeed as you did.

Not the exact same, but a similar opportuntiy. I took loans to go to college. Nobody paid my way. I have a moderate disability but work through it.

This us vs them attitude of the left is just sickening. We are in this together. This "the rich have to pay more or pay their fair share" is just utter garbage.

It is the "rich" that open businesses that make jobs for most of America. It is the "rich" that take the chance of going belly up while the unions want more and more of their business. Thinking they are entitled to it just because they work there.

Stop this class warfare rhetoric and STOP this "the rich are heartless beasts" pontifications.

QBRanger October 7 2011 2:06 PM EDT

actually try my damnedest to not show my opinion on most topics unless directly asked. it goes back to my something my grandfather said many years ago. it was something to the effect of "you can tell those whose opinions aren't worth a damn because they are the ones giving it away freely all the time."

I have asked for your opinion on this subject a couple times at least. And still have yet to get an answer to the following questions:

Are you for open borders?

Are you for obeying some laws and not others? Ones you think are correct but disobeying ones you think are just wrong?

I have no idea how many more times I have to ask to receive an answer.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 2:09 PM EDT

We are in this together.

perhaps we should try harder to assure the legal mexicans that this is the case instead of passing laws that treat them as illegal until proven legal?

this brings up another good point in my mind, it seems disjointed that you are so quick to claim class warfare but don't see the az and al laws as race warfare...are you using the same litmus test on both?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 2:09 PM EDT

no, no and no.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 2:17 PM EDT

Seriously? Have you not listened to Obama the last 3 years? Talking about the evil millionaires and billionaires that do not pay their "fair share"? Really? Nothing Bueller?

Really. Nothing. Can you give a citation for a speech or written word where Obama referred to "evil millionaires and billionaires"? I think someone is projecting, adding emphasis that was never there (I'll be more than willing to take that back when I see the citation, so just get that posted and we're cool).

Like America is the land of opportunity and you can be successful. You do not need the government to baby you along.

Hm, we already covered this in other threads, but then you started calling me stupid and silly and said you wouldn't talk any more because I wasn't answering your questions (even when I was and continue to do so). You just took your toys and went home in a huff!

I asked, simply, how do we take into account opportunity disparity? You came back with a non-answer, listing things on how to OVERCOME opportunity disparity (I know you still don't understand those are two different things, that's OK, I know other people understand). Your non-answer actually SUPPORTED the fact that we still do have opportunity disparity (despite the listed means of trying to work against it), yet here, once again, you use "land of opportunity" as if we all have the same chances (followed by some personal information that I don't care about and has no place in a intellectual debate).

I am glad to see you used "can be successful"...I think you used to use "will", as if hard work automatically equated to wealth, and therefore wealth equated to hard work (because that circular definition is an important underpinning to just about every facet of your philosophy). We're getting somewhere. One CAN be successful, true, but one also might not (at least not as much as someone else who may have worked LESS). Perhaps someday you'll be able to take that next logical step and realize some people who have worked harder than you still end up with less, and you just don't care about that. Nothing can overcome good, old-fashioned, "MINE!"

So, you can talk about opportunity (complete with manipulative, biased, personal anecdotes -- and you have the nerve to call out the NYTimes!) all you like. You're tacitly making points for the opposite viewpoint every time you do so.

QBRanger October 7 2011 2:18 PM EDT

So dude,

How about you enforce our existing immigration laws?

Do you advocate illegal immigrants going to public school?

Do you advocate illegal immigrants being able to get jobs in the US?

Do you believe the police, during a routine, legitimate traffic stop or for a legal violation should make sure the person is here legally?

What is your solution to the 15-30M illegals in the US?

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 2:21 PM EDT

Wow, dude, you gave him an inch and suddenly he wants a light-year. We went from those three questions into advocacy and asking for a comprehensive solution to the whole issue? Yikes.

I guess you think your 50-100 word plan mentioned previously actually does answer those questions, Ranger? And land-mines, of course. Lots and lots of land-mines?

Because I can come up with a plan in 50 words, too. That doesn't mean it is a _solution_.

QBRanger October 7 2011 2:25 PM EDT

I asked, simply, how do we take into account opportunity disparity?

Of course one cannot account for every opportunity disparity. However, we have a multitude of laws on the books such as the ADA, the equal opportunity laws etc.. to attempt to give everyone a chance.

I guess I am much more of an optimist thinking if you try, even with handicaps, one can be successful. I get from your question you think the opposite. That you cannot succeed without the government helping you along.

I try to answer your question, but it is not the answers you want to here. I will not give you that GOTYA moment you are hoping to read.

Unless we go to a complete socialistic society where everyone is treated the exact same there will of course be opportunity disparity.

But in the US, moreso than almost all countries, we try to overcome that and give everyone a chance.

Unless we go to a Harrison Bergeron type of society, I think disparity will always be there. Is that the utopia you personally want, where everyone is exactly equal? I certainly do not.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 2:30 PM EDT

two can play that game, it is simple misdirection. watch this:

do you think state laws should supersede federal laws?

do state rights outweigh those of the federal government?

can states make any laws if they do not agree with the federal governments handling?

as far as immigration goes, if we want to stop illegal immigration from mexico, we need states that do not share a border with mexico to send manpower such as reservists to help with the states that do.

each state declaring its own laws regarding illegals already here does little to help with those still coming and that is my primary concern at the moment. once that has been dealt with then we can move on to the issue of how we deal with the ones here.

QBRanger October 7 2011 2:35 PM EDT

But what about a state law that mirrors federal law. That does not supercede it like the Arizona law?

Are you against the Arizona law?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 2:39 PM EDT

it would be an unnecessary waste of manpower and expense fighting it in court and silly to the extreme! it also could be seen as a power-grab by the states.

you have stated in the past how you feel the federal government is incompetent, do you think the state governments do better or worse?

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 2:47 PM EDT

What is this GOTYA crap you keep mentioning. What, are you Palin?

I guess I am much more of an optimist thinking if you try, even with handicaps, one can be successful. I get from your question you think the opposite. That you cannot succeed without the government helping you along.

Reading, Ranger. It can be a rainbow, if you let it.

I know one CAN be successful, even with the opportunity disparity, and I never said otherwise. Never. Not once. Not on any thread. So since I think that, I can't very well be the opposite of it, can I? Or course people can succeed without the gov't helping (again, I never said anything to the contrary! You're making it up! You might as well just steal my password and write the words yourself, you're so far displaced from reality!)

My question was never about "can", and it was never about just being "successful". It was about work == wealth (exact equals), the lynchpin of virtually your entire economic POV.

I asked (here I go again), what you tell someone who worked just as hard and made the same choices but ended up with less wealth than someone else. Not black vs white. Not Artist vs Engineer. The same fields, same race, same gender. I even gave you an exact scenario from my own workplace. That has, every time, been the point you stop answering and start talking about whatever "GOTYA" means, when I'm not even trying to "getch" anyone!

QBRanger October 7 2011 2:59 PM EDT

Sut,

I really have no idea how you want me to answer your question. I tried and tried but you seem to call me an idiot when I do.

you have stated in the past how you feel the federal government is incompetent, do you think the state governments do better or worse?

Not really. But at least states are trying to address the problem the fed refuse. The feds are inompetent. But in this case they are both incompetent and lazy.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 3:00 PM EDT

where is the fed refusal, i missed that news item?

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 3:14 PM EDT

Ranger,

I really have no idea how you want me to answer your question. I tried and tried but you seem to call me an idiot when I do.

I don't WANT you to answer the question any way other than you want to answer. I have no agenda. I just want you to answer it. What do you tell the person who has less even though they worked as hard (or harder)? Some examples, but certainly not a forced multiple choice:

"Too bad so sad, keep trying I guess, what's mine is mine."
"You must have worked less or made a mistake, no matter what Sutekh said. Because if you worked as hard, you WOULD have the same wealth. There can never be a difference, because work = wealth in a direct relation."
"Hm, I'm not sure what to tell you."
"Let me think about this."
"<insert whatever you want here>"
"I like chocolate ice cream."

See, no GOTYA, whatever that may be, I still don't really know -- I want you to give an honest, thoughtful answer. That's all. If by GOTYA you mean I might ask a follow-up question, then, well, yeah. Isn't that the point of having a discussion and trying to learn the viewpoints of others (ESPECIALLY those who are of a different mind)?

I "seem" to call you an idiot? Nope. I didn't call you an idiot, so I don't know how it could "seem" that way (there's no degree there, someone either calls you "idiot" or they don't, and I didn't). In fact, making such a statement as yours "seems" like you are trying to say I called you names when I didn't.

Not like when you told lies about me. That really DID happen. No "seems" about it. Maybe that is what you were thinking of.

QBRanger October 7 2011 3:15 PM EDT

where is the fed refusal, i missed that news item?

Here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/18/new-dhs-rules-cancel-deportations/

Selective enforcement of the law.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 3:21 PM EDT

so we shouldn't prioritize deportations of rapists and murderers over mothers and grandmothers, or even single people over family members? i don't see any refusal in that article but simply a prioritization. you seem to get vastly different ideas from the articles you read than i get!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 3:23 PM EDT

i do see this in that article:

Since 2007, when the issue stalled in the Senate, more than 1 million illegal immigrants have been deported.

it seems like the federal government hasn't stopped enforcing illegal immigration as you have led us to believe?

i wonder how many of those have made it back in already...

QBRanger October 7 2011 3:23 PM EDT

I have to get you the link to the exact EO. It is not prioritization but an almost stopping of such people as illegal who are students.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 3:33 PM EDT

please do even though i am sure you will see horrible liberal plots that i just do not see. i could be wrong though.

QBRanger October 7 2011 3:44 PM EDT

please do even though i am sure you will see horrible liberal plots that i just do not see. i could be wrong though.

And that pretty much closes out my participation in this thread. No need to get insulted again.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 3:51 PM EDT

i have taken your insults without even mentioning them as i usually do. i am not even sure what was insulting as i was just referring to your ability to read the article regarding obama in the other thread and come up with the statement you did that "obama is cool with" the movement when all he stated was that their protests show their frustration.

is that not seeing horrible liberal plots where none exist?

QBRanger October 7 2011 3:57 PM EDT

I am comparing Obama's reaction to the Tea Party vs the Occupy Wall Street gatherings.

With the Tea Party, he almost immediately tried to denounce them as meaningless.

For the OWS, he took a 100% different tact.

You can imply what you want, for me it is obvious where he stands. While others in his party, Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Fiengold etc... actively state their favor with this movement.

QBsutekh137 October 7 2011 4:09 PM EDT

You can imply what you want, for me it is obvious where he stands.

Right. That is exactly what dudemus said, and you are showing he is correct. It doesn't matter what anyone else says, these things are "obvious" to you.

So you've got it exactly backwards... You shouldn't be the one stopping because of insults or miscommunication. The rest of us should be the one's stopping because you are basically saying. "I'll talk with you, but I won't care what you say (if you disagree with me), and I will never change because my viewpoints are already obvious."

Why do you even post then? Just to try to win converts? Because it's clear you're not going for common-ground or mind-opening opportunities by your very own words!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 7 2011 4:31 PM EDT

I am comparing Obama's reaction to the Tea Party vs the Occupy Wall Street gatherings.

actually i had asked if you thought the "manifest" you posted were the beliefs of most liberals. you then posted that it must be and linked the article while tagging on that "obama is cool with it."

in actuality all he stated was that it shows their frustration. we also since find out that the "manifesto" is no such thing.

at some point you tried to then change it into a "well he treated them differently than he did the tea party" for some reason.

what is telling though is that you were ready to see some evil liberal conspiracy, so ready to see it that you really didn't check the facts thoroughly. this led me to state that you will likely see some evil liberal plot in the executive order you were going to post.

if that is insulting to you i apologize but i truly think it is an accurate description based on what had just occurred.

either way, i am heading out of town so i will likely insult you no further this weekend and will mostly be getting on solely to burn ba and perform admin duties! have fun.

QBRanger October 7 2011 4:42 PM EDT

The manifest, certainly no.

I must have misread your question or post. For that I am sorry.

Adios Muchachos October 7 2011 6:26 PM EDT

My opinion: If you're here illegally you have no rights, no privileges, no protection from profiling. I don't want to sound harsh, but without proper regulations, and restrictions on entry the U.S. would overflow with people needing more help than we can provide. Sure 1/3 of the illegals work hard, but they need to come over legally with visas and/or green cards.


I think that border control needs to be stiffer, and punishments for crossing even more so.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 7 2011 6:59 PM EDT

This hypothetical is absurd. "Occasionally" expensive? Patently false. You ALWAYS look opulent.

We know that's not true, you forget I've also been mistaken for a trucker.

Mikel October 8 2011 12:37 AM EDT

From Sut:
>And who cares if your wife is legal or not?.<

Let me make it a clear for you.
My wife is not a US Citizen, I filed the paperwork and went thru the red tape to get her here legally. Took less than 6 months.

I have thought about some of the things you said.
I am still against anchor babies. So how about this change:
IF neither parent is a permanent legal US Citizen, then the baby is not a Citizen of the US.

Seriously, I can't take my wife to China and have a baby there and it's automatically a citizen of China. Diplomat's babies born here are not automatically US Citizens.

IF one parent is a US Citizen, they that parent can apply for aid for the baby until it is 18. Aid will be given only to the applicants that are US Citizens over the age of 18.

What you don't understand is that these anchor babies are getting free rides thru the school systems and their parents aren't paying the taxes for their education. Putting kids thru school costs tax payers a big chunk of money and obviously their illegal parents aren't always paying taxes legally (they can pay taxes thru a fake ssn, but that ssn is still registered to someone else in another part of the us or a deceased person and not going back to that community).

To OB:
Now rounding back out, these kids/adults cut in front of people that have already applied the correct way to bring over their siblings/parents and pushes the approval times back further. Now you started off complaining about the processing times, but you allow these people to keep cutting. Make up your mind.

And yes this country was based on immigration originally, but then we discovered too many people were flocking here and we needed to put caps in place in regards to how many we let in annually in order to maintain a balance.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 8 2011 3:32 AM EDT

Borrowed from next door:
If we raise the minimum wage to 20 per hour, how much do you think a gallon of milk will then cost?

But rounding up and shipping out the millions doing the crap work (and the dangerous work) for as-close-to-free-as-possible, without any guarantees or protections, won't cause prices to go up because America's legal citizens will step in, do their part, and take up the slack for the betterment of our great society!

QBRanger October 8 2011 10:22 AM EDT

Well since it is cheap labor we can just ignore the immigration laws.

Today, I think I will ignore drunk driving laws. Rest of you best stay off the roads.

Tomorrow I will start on my Ponzi scheme. After all we can all ignore the laws we want. If we can seem to justify it.

Lochnivar October 8 2011 10:36 AM EDT

...well, that's a turn to the ridiculous now isn't it?

QBRanger October 8 2011 10:41 AM EDT

Really Loch,

What is the difference between enforcing certain laws and not others?

I am sure one can justify a bunch of laws as being bad. Why follow them?

Lochnivar October 8 2011 10:56 AM EDT

You are, of course, correct. Not ticketing someone at 10mph over is the exact same as not arresting someone for shooting 25 college students.

Actually, my point was that Bast was merely noting that there is an economical impact to getting rid of all the illegals as it will raise the effective minimum wage. I don't believe she mentioned whether or not it was a good idea in that post, merely that it would effect prices for consumers. Which is correct.

The 'ridiculous' I was referring to was your leap to saying getting hammered and driving can be equated to considering the economic impact of illegal workers.


Mikel October 8 2011 11:26 AM EDT

Loch, this is only a guess about the actual impact illegal immigrants leaving will have, and quite possibly a scare tactic with politicians are famous for.

Did you know it's very easy to get seasonal workers visas?

For Agricultural workers $100 + 10 for each level certified (no education required).

For Non-Agricultural workers $400 each.

Plus all of these people have background checks done on them so that we know that they aren't criminals before they come here.

So I'm not buying your argument at all when there is a way already in place to get cheap labor here for those jobs no one wants.

QBRanger October 8 2011 11:45 AM EDT

Fine Loch,

How about we just forgive all the people on Wall Street who did insider trading.

After all that is just an economic impact we are chatting about here.

Lochnivar October 8 2011 12:03 PM EDT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

I know wikipedia is notoriously left leaning, but it is an interesting read...

QBRanger October 8 2011 12:35 PM EDT

Actually the wiki is both right and left leaning in some areas. Just depends on who updates the wiki.

But this is a nice summary:

The Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that advocates Immigration reduction in the United States, reported in 2004: "Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household."

I am sure some of the "costs" were in enforcement such as ICE.

That is 2004, however, more recent studies that I have read are similar in their conclusions.

But even if it was revenue neutral, it is still illegal. And makes a farce of all those that seek to come to America legally.

I just cannot understand how people who want the bankers on Wall Street drawn and quartered for their actions (sarcasm alert!) turn a blind eye to the illegality of illegal immigration.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 8 2011 12:41 PM EDT

Because one is viewed as driven by greed, the other is viewed as being driven by need... if anything it's perplexing that you don't see that.

Lochnivar October 8 2011 12:48 PM EDT

Your quote isn't a 'summary' of the entire article, it is simply one of the arguments they cite...

It fails to convey 90% of the information from that page, but it is the one that is closest to your beliefs...

The funny thing is I would have put money on you citing that part of the article before I posted the link... is gambling legal?

As for the yahoos in Wall Street getting vilified, well I'm pretty sure that illegal immigrants haven't tanked the US economy at any point...

I'm thinking the 10 billion cost you cite for the illegals is more palatable than the trillions spent on the bail-outs and lost due to the financial crisis.

QBRanger October 8 2011 12:48 PM EDT

So according you novice, it is ok to break the law if there is a need?

A pressing need that has to be satisfied?

As long as you think it is all in good faith, it is ok to break certain laws?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 8 2011 12:53 PM EDT

I've already stated my opinions regarding disobeying bad laws, but my point was simply to help you understand the perspective of the folks on the other side of this. You come across as shocked that others don't find parity in the crimes of the undocumented migrant workers and the crimes of those who chose short term payoffs at the cost of the economy... I'd hoped to explain why.

QBRanger October 8 2011 12:54 PM EDT

Loch,

What part of the article would you have quoted, give we were typing about the financial costs of illegal immigration?

I'm thinking the 10 billion cost you cite for the illegals is more palatable than the trillions spent on the bail-outs and lost due to the financial crisis.

So it is ok if it is only 10B in costs to break the law. So Ponzi scheme with 10B or less in loses is ok?

What I am reading from the various posts is that it is ok to be here illegally and break the law if there is a pressing need and it does not cost too much.

I full well know why people come here. I have seen hospitals give free medical care to illegals who get injured or sick. I use a lawn service and pool service that likely does employ illegals. I understand all that. But it still is illegal. If people have a problem with the law, then get the law changed.

Hell, even the DREAM act could not pass Congress. So it should be obvious that the views on CB are not shared by a majority of Americans. It is just there are >10:1 liberals to conservatives in CB.

Exit question:

If there was a true modern day Robin Hood. Someone who, let's say a computer hacker, who stole from the banks and gave to the poor, would you think that is illegal or just let them go?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 8 2011 1:01 PM EDT

I think my point is less that it's ok for someone to illegally enter the country, and more that artificial attempts to control the labor market are troublesome and often cause much more suffering than the act they're trying to prevent. They're often used in a xenophobic or at least biased manner and apparently (in the case OB mentions) can cause real world labor issues.

QBRanger October 8 2011 1:11 PM EDT

I now understand and respect your point with the exception of the xenophobic comment.

I know there are some bigoted people in the world. However, I truly believe that xenophobia has nothing to do with the wanting of illegal immigration stopped. It has to do with adhering to the law. And people trying thereafter to reward such illegal activity with things like free medical care and instate college tuition.

And it gets even more complicated when the illegals use false SSN and birth certificates to get jobs and collect benefits.

There legal way for foreigners to come to American. Like how Mikel got his wife into this country. If the laws are that bad, then we need to change them. But turning a blind eye to those that break them is very bad policy.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 8 2011 1:14 PM EDT

I'm not asking for a blind eye, I'm practically demanding they be enforced immediately wholesale without exception simply to force folks to see how disastrous the result would be. Criminalizing labor is a foolish near sighted attempt to blame the poorest among us for the failures of society as a whole. It's been done before and it doesn't work.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] October 8 2011 1:15 PM EDT

Ranger you take so much to the extremes. Only thing I have seen people say is not that its okay but rather that need is a mitigating circumstance while greed is not. So the crime of being an illegal is a lot less heinous than what caused the financial crises.

As for your exit question, if there were a modern day robin hood I wouldn't do anything to catch him, I don't do anything to catch anyone. In my heart I would applaud his actions as long as he took from the right places. But if he was caught then he's caught. I would just look at it as a mitigating circumstance. He still committed the crimes and so has to face the punishments, but I would disagree with say him facing the maximum punishment because of the mitigating circumstances surrounding the crime.

All that said, I don't think a modern day robin hood would do much good.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 8 2011 1:16 PM EDT

as to Xenophobic, I wouldn't even regard that as a bad thing, being afraid of people from other places is a real honest perspective, one I think everyone deals with... I just couldn't quite see that when writing my previous post

QBRanger October 8 2011 1:26 PM EDT

So the crime of being an illegal is a lot less heinous than what caused the financial crises.

But is it still not a crime? One could say every illegal has mitigating circumstances. Still broke the law.

Ok, then my banker analogy is too harsh. What about someone who shoplifts? That is a relatively minor crime.

Where do you draw the line on what laws should be enforced?

Ranger you take so much to the extremes.

If extremes is asking for laws to be enforced, yes I take things to extremes.

QBRanger October 8 2011 1:27 PM EDT

I understand Nov.

Xenophobic =/= bigoted.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] October 8 2011 1:30 PM EDT

Where do you draw the line on what laws should be enforced?

This is a very good question considering in San Jose at the moment you can steal up to either $1000, or $10,000 and nothing will happen to you because the police can't be bothered to deal with it due to cutbacks.

Lochnivar October 8 2011 1:31 PM EDT

Ok first things first:

1) Has Loch ever said that illegal immigration is fine, let the poor mexicans stay? No.
I've argued that illegals are not the horrific societal burden you feel they are. I've also argued that they are less harmful to the US economy than some villains on Wall Street. I've disagreed with laws that create a potential for racial profiling. I have never said throw open the borders and let all the illegals in or ignore the ones that are already in the US.

2) Does opposing draconian enforcement mean you oppose a law? No.
If it was determined that since most black SUVs are owned by drug dealers and criminals and a law was passed that allowed the police to stop all black SUVs and check that there was nothing illegal about it then I would oppose that law too. The law in question is regarding drug dealing, which I support, but the enforcement in inappropriate.

... meh, your debating would be greatly enhanced by toning down the rhetoric Ranger.

QBRanger October 8 2011 1:50 PM EDT

So what exactly in the Alabama law is Draconian?

And since you appear to be against illegal immigration, do you not believe the states should be able to pick up the slack from the Feds refusal to enforce the current laws?

QBRanger October 8 2011 1:57 PM EDT

If it was determined that since most black SUVs are owned by drug dealers and criminals and a law was passed that allowed the police to stop all black SUVs and check that there was nothing illegal about it then I would oppose that law too. The law in question is regarding drug dealing, which I support, but the enforcement in inappropriate.

If such a law was passed, and I doubt it would ever get past committee, then it would have to go through all the challenges like the AL law. If it was upheld like the AL law then I, unlike you, would support and follow it. Just because one does like like a law does not mean one can ignore it.

There is nothing in the AL law that promotes or encourages profiling.

That is not to say in certain cases profiling may be helpful. Just look at airports in Isreal. But in America, ESP with immigration, states are very careful to avoid and hint of profiling of illegals. Does it occur? I think in cases, yes. But we have checks and balances to try to minimize it. Such as the ACLU etc...

QBPit Spawn [Abyssal Specters] October 8 2011 9:43 PM EDT

"SACRAMENTO ヨ Illegal immigrants can now apply for state-funded scholarships and aid at state universities after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Saturday that he has signed the second half of a legislative package focused on such students."

QBPit Spawn [Abyssal Specters] October 8 2011 9:47 PM EDT

meant to add, as if we weren't far enough behind in education

QBRanger October 8 2011 10:09 PM EDT

Thanks for that update Pit.

Seems laws encouraging illegal immigration like the CA DREAM ACT are accepted by the left as good laws. But laws cracking down are thought of as bad.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 8 2011 10:22 PM EDT

Problem is, we need two kinds of laws.

One to reform immigration to put some kind of "path to citizenship" that includes certain bonuses if you are a particularly exceptional person. This path would be compulsory for illegal immigrants already here. Basically, if you want to stay here, you need to prove your worth, if you can, we would be more then happy to have you.

Another that changes how immigration is enforced at the border. Pick one:
- Go hardline, don't let anyone come in unless they have explicit purpose, passport, etc, and just deport everyone that doesn't have proper papers.
- Go pragmatic, INS agents, in addition to making sure people aren't here illegally, are also forced to give illegal immigrants papers in multiple languages that show the illegal immigrants how to go about gaining entry to the US legally.

QBRanger October 8 2011 10:31 PM EDT

One to reform immigration to put some kind of "path to citizenship" that includes certain bonuses if you are a particularly exceptional person. This path would be compulsory for illegal immigrants already here. Basically, if you want to stay here, you need to prove your worth, if you can, we would be more then happy to have you.

No, I am against citizenship for people who are here breaking the law. They should never have a path to citizenship as long as there are here illegally. If they want to become citizens, they have to go back home and apply like everyone else.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 8 2011 10:45 PM EDT

Why do you hate illegal immigrants so much Ranger? They are just people who came here looking for more opportunity.

Lochnivar October 8 2011 10:46 PM EDT

No, I am against citizenship for people who are here breaking the law. They should never have a path to citizenship as long as there are here illegally. If they want to become citizens, they have to go back home and apply like everyone else.


I'll never accuse you of being overly pragmatic Ranger, stick to those principles!

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 8 2011 10:47 PM EDT

Ranger, think Judge Dredd himself would facepalm to your polarized view.
Quit this "I want laws enforced! charade. We want laws enforced too. No one is ignoring this law either as the article stands to say. We dislike where it might go. Detainment and investigating children is a bit much to take in until we see it in action. Is perfectly acceptable for US citizens like us to dislike a law. Quit seeing us here at CB as treasonous liberals.
Immigrants come here for a better life. That's it. They aren't wily con artists with plans to steal your tax dollars as you sleep. To them it's survival. To you it is to function only as parasites and welfare families or so the greatest majority of your posts make me to believe. There is a grey area where people often exist. You need to slow that roll.
For the love of Zombie Reagan you need to slow that roll.
I'm with Mikel on the baby born issue. Great for humanity, bad in this practice. Fex, option B please, but of course I'd like a unit or two more of our Iraq soldiers transfered to the border.

QBRanger October 8 2011 10:51 PM EDT

Why do you hate illegal immigrants so much Ranger? They are just people who came here looking for more opportunity.

I have already explained.

Quit seeing us here at CB as treasonous liberals.

Then quit seeing me as a heartless conservative.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 8 2011 10:54 PM EDT

yeah, landmines are in no way heartless! : )

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 8 2011 11:20 PM EDT

Well, I suppose if you've watched enough conservative talk shows, I can see why you have that viewpoint. Lets just hope that someday you meet an illegal immigrant, and get to see first hand how they are human being s too, just like you, and not just criminal scum that you seem to think they are.

QBRanger October 8 2011 11:42 PM EDT

Veri,

I live in South Florida.

I see illegal immigrants every day. I am forced to take care of them at work free of charge. In fact, I suspect I have had more contact with illegal immigrants than almost anyone else here on CB.

I know and realize they are not "criminal scum". However, they have, for whatever reason, broken the law.

My great grandparents waited their turn to immigrate from Poland. Yes, waited their turn. They did not sneak here illegally and then someday received amnesty.

I know people in other countries that are waiting their turn to immigrate to the US. And likely will be pushed further back in line while we try to work on amnesty for the illegals already here.

So why do we turn a blind eye and/or advocate illegal immigration?

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 9 2011 12:23 AM EDT

We didn't turn a blind eye. It's a flawed system.
This law is also potentially flawed and may prove libel to good ol 'bama. It's about weeding out the brown illegals not making more legals so your polish relatives don't fit into this.
There's a difference to being made to wait in line to get papers and waiting in jail for a day because you didn't have your papers on hand. Try to look in terms of risk assessment and you might understand what I'm playing at. Different actions and consequences per person(S). Race profiling, exodus, and risk are bad for a governing body.

If the illegals really did flee the state... I wonder if they'll head south....What's south of Alabama again? ;)

Mikel October 9 2011 4:01 AM EDT

There's more than just Brown illegals in this country. Brown just happens to make up the majority.

"There's a difference to being made to wait in line to get papers and waiting in jail for a day because you didn't have your papers on hand. Try to look in terms of risk assessment and you might understand what I'm playing at. Different actions and consequences per person(S). Race profiling, exodus, and risk are bad for a governing body."

I have visited other countries and in each one I had to have my passport on me at all times or else get detained and/or fined until cleared. Same should apply to non-USC's.

Lochnivar October 9 2011 4:36 AM EDT

I have visited other countries and in each one I had to have my passport on me at all times or else get detained and/or fined until cleared. Same should apply to non-USC's.

What countries are you visiting? I've been to a half a dozen and not thought twice about my passport while there.

QBJohnnywas October 9 2011 5:34 AM EDT

Yeah Loch me too, halfway around the world and back and only needed my passport to get through security at airports.

QBJohnnywas October 9 2011 5:38 AM EDT

Although if anybody is going to be stopped to be patted down by security it's me. Thankfully no strip search!

Lochnivar October 9 2011 10:51 AM EDT

Although if anybody is going to be stopped to be patted down by security it's me. Thankfully no strip search!

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask to see your passport sir, you 'fit the description'... every description.

QBRanger October 9 2011 11:09 AM EDT

From the wiki:

Most countries have the rule that foreign citizens need to have their passport or occasionally a national identity card from their home country available at any time if they do not have residence permit in the country.

I carry my drivers license with me everywhere I go.

Lochnivar October 9 2011 11:24 AM EDT

I carry my drivers license with me everywhere I go.

And if you were a Mexican visiting Alabama (lord knows why) that would mean they might detain you until your immigration status was confirmed...

Mikel October 9 2011 11:50 AM EDT

Loch,
I have never been harassed or asked for my Passport either, but that doesn't mean that the local authorities can't stop me and ask me for it. If they want to "profile" me, (me being in the minority in a non-European country) then I have to be able to produce those documents on an instants notice.

QBRanger October 9 2011 12:13 PM EDT

Actually no Loch

In all but 3 states, a drivers license is proof of citizenship. So even if I were Mexican, producing a drivers license from AL is enough.

Lochnivar October 9 2011 12:40 PM EDT

If they want to "profile" me, (me being in the minority in a non-European country) then I have to be able to produce those documents on an instants notice.

Yes, but it has been repeatedly stated that the Alabama laws don't encourage racial profiling.....

That said, the reason you don't get stopped is the same reason I don't get stopped: Foreigners of European heritage are considered (generally) a source of revenue for whichever country they are visiting. Racial profiling can be both positive and negative, but it is very real.

Just out of curiousity, do they people favouring mass deportations really think that removing 5% of the workforce isn't going to have a negative impact on an already weak economy? It isn't like the unemployment rate is going to miraculously drop as illegals are considered, at worst, to be generally 'job neutral' in that their presence adds as many jobs to the economy as they fill.

Yes laws should be followed and respected, but there is a point at which you have to be pragmatic and accept that the best result you can manage requires compromise.

Lochnivar October 9 2011 12:49 PM EDT

In all but 3 states, a drivers license is proof of citizenship. So even if I were Mexican, producing a drivers license from AL is enough.

You missed my point, I was referring to having a Mexican driver's license in Alabama... just like you carry your American DL in other countries...

QBRanger October 9 2011 12:52 PM EDT

I never stated I was for mass deportations. Ever.

Now who is going to the extreme?

In the US we try to go to extreme length not to racial profile. While in some countries, such as Israel it is proven to be effective.

Yes laws should be followed and respected, but there is a point at which you have to be pragmatic and accept that the best result you can manage requires compromise.

So again, we should follow only certain laws? Laws that some people like? If the law is a pain, just ignore it, in the interest of compromise?

QBRanger October 9 2011 1:02 PM EDT

You missed my point, I was referring to having a Mexican driver's license in Alabama... just like you carry your American DL in other countries...

By carrying my DL, I was referring to while in America. When I travel abroad, I carry a copy of my passport wherever I go.

I am sorry if that was confusing.

Lochnivar October 9 2011 1:04 PM EDT

I never stated I was for mass deportations. Ever.

I'm sorry, what is your proposal for what to do with the 11 million or so illegal immigrants? I mean enforcing the laws would require expelling them at some point right?

By the way, when I say sometimes compromise is necessary it isn't a blanket 'pick your laws' comment, it simply and acknowledgement that illegal immigrant situation is very complicated because of how integrated they have become in US society.

QBRanger October 9 2011 1:07 PM EDT

Yes, It is very complicated.

I proposed a plan earlier in the thread which was ridiculed by Sut as being unacceptable for the current problem to be put into less than 100 words. Or something that read like that to me.

But until we close the borders, nothing can be done on a widescale effort to address the problem.

And by border, I am both the north and south border as well as the other methods of entry such as ports.

Lochnivar October 9 2011 1:37 PM EDT

Within 1 year, everyone who is illegal has to register. If they are not a felon or have less than 3 misdemeanors they stay, otherwise they are deported immediately.

Everyone who reports gets a permanents guest worker status. All rights of a citizen except 2. No right to vote, and if they commit a felony immediate deportation.

I kind of enjoy the irony of an admitted Tea Party supporter suggesting a plan which allows for taxation without representation... unless you are suggesting we don't tax them (which I kind of highly doubt)

QBRanger October 9 2011 1:41 PM EDT

Right now foreign workers with visa's pay taxes. Foreign corporations pay taxes if in the US. This is not unprecedented.

I just find it unpalatable to reward people who came here illegally.

Citizens vote, noncitizens in the US do not.

Lochnivar October 9 2011 2:09 PM EDT

Are they free to travel back and forth to their homeland, can they be drafted or serve on juries?

Lochnivar October 9 2011 3:20 PM EDT

This illegal immigrant issue seems to be persistent....

"During the 1920s illegal immigration was the subject of heated Congressional debates. Edward H. Dowell, vice-president of the California Federation of Labor, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Immigration in February of 1928 about the burden of the unrestricted flow of Mexicans on the stateメs taxpayers, prisons, hospitals and American workersメ wages. "

from:
http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/History_of_Illegal_Immigration_in_US/index.shtml

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 9 2011 5:09 PM EDT

Talking with my Aunts they can remember a California without Mexicans... even families native to the area around here were caught up in the depression era deportations. Economic woes consistently lead to the same kind of finger pointing...

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 9 2011 5:35 PM EDT

Ranger *cough* No One Is Saying To Not Follow The Law!
Israel it is proven to be effective.
Let's not go there.

Mikel, I do want suspects to be carded. We all do. We all need passports to visit Paris too. What happens after that is where I'm residing as this law isn't so cut and dry.
The law allows police to detain people indefinitely if they are suspected of being in the country illegally
Do not like. That's a good reason to flee a state whether true to the T or not. That has scary possibilities. Who here supports that?
Illegal is illegal, but let's keep the toll booths on the hunt-mexican-without-flair road.

QBRanger October 9 2011 7:09 PM EDT

No, you are saying let us look the other way.

Something we should not do.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 9 2011 7:26 PM EDT

Do not like. =/= Look the other way.

Quit beating that drum and I'll quit breakin' da law!

QBRanger October 9 2011 7:35 PM EDT

I understand you do not like the current immigration laws. However, they still are the law.

There is nothing in the AL law that promotes ore encourages racial profiling.

Schools right now check on every student to make sure they are in the current zone to attend. What is the harm in having them also check if they are here legally?

Police cannot check immigration status unless there is probable cause to pull over or arrest someone. Why is also checking their immigration status wrong?

The thread started on +1 to enforced racial profiling. However, that premise is false, as nothing is encouraging enforced racial profiling.

QBOddBird October 10 2011 2:50 AM EDT

The thread started on +1 to enforced racial profiling. However, that premise is false, as nothing is encouraging enforced racial profiling.

Hi, my name is Ranger and I say things and that makes them true

Mikel October 10 2011 7:13 AM EDT

Ok, different approach.

So let's say we remove millions of immigrants.
Prices of some goods go up a little.

Employers now have to offer better packages (medical/benefits/pension/higher pay) in order to attract workers from other employers to come work for them. I guess that's a really bad thing.

Besides, I've already pointed out the cheap cost of paying for the H1-A and H1-B visa's to bring immigrants over to work for you.

Another big point that many of you are ignoring:
Part of the money they make goes back to the home country. Meaning that retailers here are suffering from the lack of sales because of this.

In 2008 illegal and legal immigrants sent a total of $45.9 billion dollars to the Latin American countries. That's money that US retailers and the US govt will never get to see or collect any type of tax on.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 10 2011 7:51 AM EDT

Employers now have to offer better packages (medical/benefits/pension/higher pay) in order to attract workers from other employers to come work for them. I guess that's a really bad thing.

i think it is more likely that the jobs would be shipped to mexico along with the people. if mexico is too unstable, there are quite a few other options cheaper than us.

Mikel October 10 2011 8:43 AM EDT

Mine is based off of history, yours is pure speculation. Some jobs will always be going oversea's. But until American's are working and spending other countries economies will slowly crash and burn as well.

If you feel so strongly about jobs going oversea's, then I'd suggest you start applying for those jobs and move, or at least start investing in those companies that are doing that.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this:
If American's aren't working, then they aren't buying. If they aren't buying then imports decrease and companies fold. If companies fold, then oversea's jobs disappear. If oversea's jobs and imports decrease enough, other countries economies will tank just as hard as ours.

And where does that leave us?
History shows us that we will rebuild from within and work our way back out.

QBsutekh137 October 10 2011 9:02 AM EDT

I proposed a plan earlier in the thread which was ridiculed by Sut as being unacceptable for the current problem to be put into less than 100 words. Or something that read like that to me.

Citation needed

And no, passive aggressive bull-roar like "or something that read like that to me" doesn't count.

Show me where I ridiculed your plan. Or is this like the time you called me a racist by twisting my words? That's fine if it is, as that ended with an apology, a perfectly acceptable route in this case, too.

QBsutekh137 October 10 2011 9:03 AM EDT

I just find it unpalatable to reward people who came here illegally.

What's the reward?

Mikel October 10 2011 9:12 AM EDT

The reward is you are allowing them to stay.

QBsutekh137 October 10 2011 9:18 AM EDT

So let's say we remove millions of immigrants.
Prices of some goods go up a little.

Employers now have to offer better packages (medical/benefits/pension/higher pay) in order to attract workers from other employers to come work for them. I guess that's a really bad thing.

How does A lead to B here?

Prices go up, so employers offer better jobs? *scratches head* Whenever I have mentioned anything that could lead to higher prices (like raising taxes on corporations), I've been told that is the perfect way to DESTROY jobs. Where is this additional job competition coming from?

Also, as OB has stated, construction in his area is at a standstill, so apparently something is awry with the job situation. Either employers are doing exactly the OPPOSITE of what you say (NOT increasing packages), or no one is willing to do these jobs for any wage. I figure it is a little of both, and it might level out over time, but I don't think it is logical or safe to say employers are going to start offering milk and honey. We've already seen what some companies do when they have record profits -- stock buybacks and larger-than-ever bonuses for corporate officers.

What makes you think some immigration changes are suddenly going to lead to an employee's market? Especially in jobs at the higher end of the scale. Let's be frank -- removing 11 million immigrants isn't going to create 11 million engineering jobs. A lot of these jobs are low-end construction, agricultural, janitorial, etc (no, I don't have figures). You expect employers to start handing out gold-lined employment packages for jobs barely above the minimum wage? Not to mention, some of these service jobs (such as in the hotel industry) are beginning to shift to corporate-run clearing-house sorts of employment services that use temporary workers and bare-minimum benefits (if any) to reduce costs. In other words, even at the low end, some people are losing jobs and seeing benefits and wages reduced.

I don't see how that is likely to turn around.

QBsutekh137 October 10 2011 9:20 AM EDT

If American's aren't working, then they aren't buying. If they aren't buying then imports decrease and companies fold. If companies fold, then oversea's jobs disappear. If oversea's jobs and imports decrease enough, other countries economies will tank just as hard as ours.

I completely agree.

So why aren't corporations hiring when they have the money (some from record profits) for stock buybacks and huge officer bonuses?

QBsutekh137 October 10 2011 9:33 AM EDT

The reward is you are allowing them to stay.

Well, if THAT'S the reward, then simply make it pay to play. Tax them.

It's not like we're running out of air or something. You're talking about services, right? So tax them, then they are paying for service. After all, they have the jobs, right?

And before you say "well, they make so little they would fall in the 47% that wouldn't pay taxes anyway", that would be the case REGARDLESS of who has the jobs. So that's not really the issue, either (it is an issue, but not THE issue, in this case).

The simple "pay to play" idea would be part of my under-100-words idea for all this. Ranger states above I was ridiculing him when all I said was that I can state ideas, too: doesn't make it a "solution". He never asked what my ideas were (he rarely asks such a thing unless he is demanding answers, something he considered "GOTYA" when anyone returns the favor) -- he just appears to have waited a while until he could say I ridiculed him when I didn't do anything even remotely close. Hey, 200+ posts, who's going to actually go check? Sutekh is probably just a jerk, right?

By the way, that's the reason I don't always share ideas: it gets hard to deal with someone who has called me a liar, racist, and who often attributes mean comments to me that never actually happened (or are brutally twisted out of context just to make me look bad). That is, when he isn't busy supporting his point by telling us all how hard he's had it (as if the rest of us haven't?). You can understand why I'm reaching the point of not understanding why I should even try to find common ground.

QBRanger October 10 2011 9:47 AM EDT

Well, if THAT'S the reward, then simply make it pay to play. Tax them.

Excellent!!

I can choose to obey certain laws but if I break them, I can use money to get out of any repercussions?

Hi, my name is Ranger and I say things and that makes them true

Again OB, please show me in the law anything the encourages racial profiling. The federal judge struck down those parts of the law that may have do with profiling.

Just because you state this law enforces racial profiling, certainly does not make it true.

QBRanger October 10 2011 9:52 AM EDT

I guess you think your 50-100 word plan mentioned previously actually does answer those questions, Ranger? And land-mines, of course. Lots and lots of land-mines?

Ridicule, lots of ridicule right there as one example. But that is ok. You can state whatever you want. I can just call you on it like you do me.

Mikel October 10 2011 10:01 AM EDT

Sut:
1st Post:
Long term effect sut.
Once everyone is employed and there is a shortage of employees, then it will become an employee's market. I didn't say it was going to happen overnight.

2nd Post:
Corps seem to be scared of Obama and are unsure about the future simply because he's not doing enough to create jobs. His current Jobs bill is not even being backed by the Dems. He's trying to use it as a political campaign for re-election.

BTW My company has been hiring, we've hired approx 100 people in the last 2 weeks. So you can't tell me that major corps aren't hiring, they just might not be hiring in big enough numbers for us to really see an effect (since many companies are still cutting their job force).

3rd Post:
Sut, I'm fine with Illegals that apply to have work visa's and eventually work their way into being a USC. I want them all to subject to a background check, any crimes, permanent ban and deportation. No questions asked.

We have to find a way to weed out the bad ones and keep them out, we'll never be 100% free of illegal immigrants, but we need to keep the numbers down to a manageable level with out interfering with the applications that have already been submitted the legal way.

Also need to hit companies really hard with fines that employ illegal immigrants. Fine them for each illegal they have employed, enough to where the deportation costs are completely covered by them. If we start showing companies we are serious about it, they will stop hiring them. If they stop hiring them then illegals will have a harder time getting work and as that gets communicated back to their homelands, less of them will have the desire to cross.

QBsutekh137 October 10 2011 10:25 AM EDT

Mikel,

1st Post:
Long term effect sut.
Once everyone is employed and there is a shortage of employees, then it will become an employee's market. I didn't say it was going to happen overnight.

Yes, I agree. I understand how employment works and the ratios involved. But that still doesn't mean these are the types of jobs that work for the aforementioned long-term. Two of the largest employers in our nation are Wal-Mart and McDonalds. I'm not knocking those lines of work -- it is better than no work at all. But is that the future you would see for the next generation and the following? More and more minimum wage, service/merch jobs?

Just like you want to "weed out" the bad elements of immigration, I want to "grow in" better jobs. I realize that's a topic for another discussion, though. *smile*

2nd Post:
Corps seem to be scared of Obama and are unsure about the future simply because he's not doing enough to create jobs. His current Jobs bill is not even being backed by the Dems. He's trying to use it as a political campaign for re-election.

I don't claim to know why Obama does or doesn't do anything. I've no idea. And if Corps "seem to be scared", what is the solution there? Should we capitulate to whatever they ask in terms of market policy until they feel comfy, and then they will finally start hiring? Not sure what you remember about growing up, but I have been alive for nearly 40 years and can't remember a single period in the past that wasn't full of potential hurdles and unknowns. Heck, in the early 80s we thought bombs were going to wipe us all out in a matter of moments -- why were corps hiring then? I don't understand the whole "but corps are scared" -- they're supposed to be scared! That's the risk they take that Ranger states should let them keep their wealth! Now it sounds as if certain corporations want all the wealth, AND want to cower in the corner at the same time. They want the wealth WITHOUT the risk. Doesn't make sense to me. What will it take to make corporations feel "comfortable" if the simple desire to make a profit isn't enough? Because many companies ARE making profits. Do I need to fetch them their slippers?

BTW My company has been hiring, we've hired approx 100 people in the last 2 weeks. So you can't tell me that major corps aren't hiring, they just might not be hiring in big enough numbers for us to really see an effect (since many companies are still cutting their job force).

Excellent. So has mine. I never said NO major corps are hiring. Of course, I meant that they just aren't hiring enough to make a net gain here, and to me that seems odd, especially for companies that can afford to compensate higher-ups with huge bonuses. Don't you find that strange at all? The great Gov. Walker even put our state in the red with corporate tax breaks, but WI unemployment doesn't appear to be easing any more than elsewhere -- why isn't that working?

3rd Post:
Sut, I'm fine with Illegals that apply to have work visa's and eventually work their way into being a USC. I want them all to subject to a background check, any crimes, permanent ban and deportation. No questions asked.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on degree. I'm fine as long as they pay to play. I don't distrust immigrants any more than I distrust anyone already here, and I'm not about to do background checks on everyone. That's up to the employers, anyway. Free market -- if they want to check, they can check. But they DO need to get the taxes and have their financials on the up and up, I agree with you on all of that. The beauty of the taxing (and enforcing it) is that it will get the cash AND keep employers in line, too. Not exactly sure how it is all going to be enforced, but then, mass screenings and potential deportations aren't exactly easy to implement either. Plus, if you do the work at the point of revenue, then that alleviates the need to check in all the other areas, like forcing schools to do checks.

Thanks for the good discussion, by the way, I appreciate you taking the time. Still think your view on born-on-soil naturalization is a bit off, but oh well. *smile*

QBRanger October 10 2011 10:29 AM EDT

Heck, in the early 80s we thought bombs were going to wipe us all out in a matter of moments -- why were corps hiring then?

Because they had a president in the WH that did not vilify millionaires and billionaires in every stump speech. A president that did not want to increase their taxes, in fact they had a president that wanted to lower their taxes, including capital gains.

They did not have a president who through the NLRB is promoting anti-business pro-union policies. A NLRB that would have never went after Boeing for moving a plant to SC. A NLRB that would never think of letting micro-unions form.

We had a president then who understood the Laffler curve. Not one that thinks we have to tax more in the interest of fairness and wanting to spread the wealth around.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 10 2011 10:31 AM EDT

a president more like george w. bush then?

QBsutekh137 October 10 2011 10:32 AM EDT

I can choose to obey certain laws but if I break them, I can use money to get out of any repercussions?

I don't really consider paying taxes for services as paying to break the law.

This is part of a new plan, one where the immigration laws are reformed, and perhaps, yes, have some grandfathering built in. That's not a new notion. Policy has often involved some sorts of grandfathering or amnesty in the past.

The point is we start getting the money. Then the whole "they aren't paying for services!" can go away. Isn't that what we are trying to solve? If the alternative is gradual deportation, and these folks had jobs before (jobs not necessarily getting re-filled once they are vacated) then other solutions will lead to LESS revenue, won't they?

I'm trying to generate more revenue, something very much needed, and something that I would assume the raising-tax-averse GOP members to also be on board with, no? Why wouldn't they be?

This also solved the "but they send the money home" issue. Let them send their net home. I'm not saying we're going to set up a pre-tax flex plan where they can export money BEFORE taxes. I don't care what someone does with their wages after taxes. They can save them, put them under their mattress, or shoot them into the sun for all I care.

QBRanger October 10 2011 10:32 AM EDT

IIRC W was president in the 2000s, not the 1980s.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 10 2011 10:34 AM EDT

lol, he is more like what you described though?

QBRanger October 10 2011 10:37 AM EDT

This is part of a new plan, one where the immigration laws are reformed, and perhaps, yes, have some grandfathering built in.

I agree with that and posted my thoughts on the matter but got laughed at by you.

But right now, this very minute, before anything gets done, would you reward illegal behaviour? It seems to me reading this thread that you will.

Immigration reform will likely not occur for a while. Hell, even 2 years ago when the Democrats had essentially free reign to pass whatever they wanted, they spent all their political capital on Obamacare. They would not even take up immigration reform. Because it is such a hot topic that there is and likely will not be a consensus for a long time.

You have states like AL and AZ passing stricter laws while CA just passed a law allowing illegals to get scholarships to public universities in addition to instate tuition.

QBsutekh137 October 10 2011 10:38 AM EDT

Ridicule, lots of ridicule right there as one example. But that is ok. You can state whatever you want. I can just call you on it like you do me.

Not sure what you're talking about, Ranger.

You said land-mines, and I repeated land-mines as being part of your plan (because it was, and you even continued to support the idea in later posts -- up to and including potential collateral damage such a plan might cause). If you saw my re-mentioning that as ridicule, then that says far more about your original idea (to use aforementioned land-mines) then it does about my reiteration.

Don't try to pass the buck now when the idea was yours in the first place. If the land-line idea was inherently ridiculous to start with, that's not my problem. And if the land-mine idea ISN'T ridiculous in your view, then why should you care if I bring it up again? That doesn't make sense.

QBsutekh137 October 10 2011 10:45 AM EDT

I agree with that and posted my thoughts on the matter but got laughed at by you.

Nope, sure didn't. You just stated above that what you considered "ridicule" was the land-mine commentary, and I just addressed that above. I never laughed or ridiculed anything else (since I wasn't even ridiculing the land-mines any more than to say I vehemently disagree with the heinous thought -- that's not ridicule, it's simple dissent).

But right now, this very minute, before anything gets done, would you reward illegal behaviour? It seems to me reading this thread that you will.

Well, going by historical record, if it seems that way to you, then nothing I say is going to change that.

No, I would not reward illegal behavior. And I am consistent in my tax idea since such a scheme doesn't reward anything. If anything, it is a punishment. The upside from a red-tape aspect is that it alleviates stuff like schools having the onerous task of screening.

We're in a tough situation, and you seem to be hung up on the whole "But it was illegal and we must exact JUSTICE!" That's how I read your attitude on the thread, anyway. Can we move beyond the "OMG ILLEGAL!" aspect in this case, since we can approach it with workarounds?

QBRanger October 10 2011 11:10 AM EDT

How about it is illegal and we do not reward or promote illegal activity?

QBRanger October 10 2011 11:26 AM EDT

So what would you do about someone like President Obama's uncle:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/onyango-obama-obamas-uncle_n_940974.html

Guess what happened to him? He was released and went back to his old job. No deportation, no penalty so far. Just catch and release. And have fun in America staying illegally, driving drunk!!

QBOddBird October 10 2011 11:26 AM EDT

Again OB, please show me in the law anything the encourages racial profiling. The federal judge struck down those parts of the law that may have do with profiling. Just because you state this law enforces racial profiling, certainly does not make it true.

I know everyone else is interested in debate babysitting you, but this has already been answered. I gave you examples with links. I'm not interested in debating you, Ranger, because you don't debate.

QBRanger October 10 2011 11:32 AM EDT

I failed to see any evidence of encouragement of racial profiling in any aspect of the law.

But I guess if you say racial profiling enough times, it is bound to be true. Even though there is no proof of it in the AL law.

Now who refuses to actually debate the facts.

QBOddBird October 10 2011 11:52 AM EDT

I know everyone else is interested in debate babysitting you, but this has already been answered. I gave you examples with links.

C'mon Ranger, I know you can read the quote. I know you can do it. Use your big boy reading goggles.

QBRanger October 10 2011 12:25 PM EDT

The more you say racial profiling, the more you actually believe it.

There is nothing in the law that promotes or encourages profiling.

When you can understand that point, we can move forward to a more constructive debate.

You started the thread with the assumption of enforced racial profiling.

QBRanger October 10 2011 12:31 PM EDT

I gave you examples with links.

I have looked again at the thread. I have yet to see any links with data stating this law will encourage racial profiling.

Section 5 was struck down by a federal judge of which I agreed that was a very poorly worded and enacted part of the law.

But where does it tell police, teachers, public workers to single out hispanics? I just states that these public servants should check the immigration status of all people when they are stopped for traffic violations, try to enroll in public schools, are arrested etc...

It seems to me, in the world according to Ranger, that you wish to keep the status quo. Something I do not wish. I do not wish to reward or promote illegal behavior.

QBsutekh137 October 10 2011 1:09 PM EDT

So what would you do about someone like President Obama's uncle:

Another quick lesson in debates, Ranger:

Using one-off, specific anecdotes to try to make global points isn't generally considered effective or reasonable (unless you go in for shock-jock, sensationalist goals ala Glenn Beck). You're picking on one specific anecdote, something I could do, too, if so inclined. If I were to find specific anecdotes of racial profiling, terrible border abuses, etc, you would laugh and say it had nothing to do with the overall picture (because you are the guy who said if a land-mine blew someone up who didn't deserve it, they just shouldn't have been there in the first place).

So, we can go anecdote for anecdote and simply grow old without engaging in any enlightening discourse, or we could have a real, adult discussion.

Specific, petty diatribes have nothing to do with the global issues we are discussing. But if it makes you feel better, have at it. Like OB, I'm done babysitting. I thought the weekend might have brought things back to a more reasonable level (and am glad I cam back to have discourse with Mikel -- that felt fruitful), but by and large that doesn't appear to be so. Take it easy.

QBOddBird October 26 2011 12:15 AM EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/alabama-immigration-law-deli-owner_n_1022535.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

JUST FIGURED I WOULD LEAVE THIS HERE O:

Phrede October 28 2011 6:30 AM EDT

Yawn

Mikel October 28 2011 11:46 PM EDT

I read the post ob, it is not the fault of the law. It's the wonderful media that took it and twisted it. But you have given us a perfect example where the media takes something out of context, twists it to their means and the masses believe it and the person doing the right thing is now in danger of losing his business.

Lochnivar October 29 2011 1:02 AM EDT

I read the post ob, it is not the fault of the law. It's the wonderful media that took it and twisted it. But you have given us a perfect example where the media takes something out of context, twists it to their means and the masses believe it and the person doing the right thing is now in danger of losing his business.


I've read both stories, the huffpo one, and the original linked from the Birmingham news. I would characterize neither as 'out of context' or 'twisting'. The original article from the Birmingham News in no way categorizes deli owner as sinner or saint, it pretty much straight up reports his assessment of his situation. There is no 'spin' to cause him harm... and yet he has suffered as a result of the article.

This isn't a spin job or media manipulation, it is a poorly educated and bigoted section of the population that has taken the new law as an official endorsement of their xenophobia. They can't tell the difference between legal Mexican immigrants and illegal ones, but they can sure as shoot tell the difference between Mexicans and 'Americans'. Thus you get the harassment that the deli owner has suffered... for employing Mexicans, not illegals.

Mikel October 29 2011 11:12 AM EDT

You're right there was nothing in the original story that said he supported illegals in any way. He should've never went to the media in the first place. Once you do, you're fair game for all sides. It's too touchy of a subject right now. Apparently he didn't think it through to well and is now paying the consequences of his actions by making it even harder on himself.

WE have too many people on unemployment with nothing to do and willing to blame anyone and everyone for their problems. Illegal immigrants are a part of the problem, the other is government is too busying giving themselves a raise and taking vacations when they need to be doing something or to busy out campaigning and blaming the other party instead of being in Washington forcing something to get done.

No one would have to be out doing heavy campaigning if they just simply did their job. People will notice that and they'd be satisfied with the status quo.

QBOddBird October 29 2011 2:44 PM EDT

Agreed. He should never have given his opinion to the media if it isn't a popular opinion reinforcing the state government's decision. There was absolutely no need for him to relate the ground-level effects of an overarching decision.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 30 2011 6:47 PM EDT

Mikel, he may be open to harsh talk having spoken, but that does not mean radicals are right in abusing the same amendment against him. Does not mean he should predict the stupidity of man before talking to any reporter. Nor is he to blame for their hate filled phone calls. Until he posts on youtube. Think I'm twisting this to make it seem like you hate this man and defended racists? I'll illustrate in a gentle manner.
If I was to say you are making emotionally fueled associations with pseudo-logic and should be castrated by rabid antelope. By your brainfart. You are to blame for my words, the wild animal attack, and the aftershock should you respond against me from the ER until you recant.

Think you are confused on other points....
The persons taunting his poor job creator are not a gang of unemployed blow hards.
Illegals are a problem, but are not the problem we and the courts are in question of. Taking a broad brush to illegals and rich bureaucrats at this point is more or less spin and straw men.
This is state government in action not DC.
People will not notice a good job until the dust has settled. We will never be satisfied and the status quo sucks.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003EWf">Alabama sucks.</a>