Poll: Most Americans support AZ immigration law

[ducks]

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/153484

[jacobdrj]

Well, it DID pass in Arizona, so some populous majority of some kind obviously wanted it somewhere...

Not so sure that other parts of the US have the same grasp of the situation, assuming you don't live in a border state.

But what do I know? My closest southern border crossing is to Canada...

[Nbadan]

The East Valley Tribune? :lol

[admiralsnackbar]

The East Valley Tribune? :lol

It's a Pew poll, but somehow assuming that a majority of the country supporting a law that will never affect them carries any weight seems meaningless. Far more telling would be polls along the border, where latino citizens are more numerous than illegals (or even whites in some cases).

[LnGrrrR]

I did my own informal poll, and found that 95% of people wish scientists were working on a way to transform sand into ice cream.

Cmon government! Get some research going on that!

[DarrinS]

I was against the first draft because it used language like "reasonable suspicion", which one might reasonably conclude would lead to racial profiling. The amended version removes this language and merely gives local law enforcement the ability to enforce the federal law that's been on the books for decades. Any feined outrage about it now is just political theater.

[DarrinS]

Well, it DID pass in Arizona, so some populous majority of some kind obviously wanted it somewhere...

Not so sure that other parts of the US have the same grasp of the situation, assuming you don't live in a border state.

But what do I know? My closest southern border crossing is to Canada...


Windsor? I went there once back in 99. The Canadians were quite rigorous about checking my paperwork, much more so than the American side. I'm sure that changed after 9/11.

[Das Texan]

The majority of people didnt want Civil Rights also.

What is your point?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I was against the first draft because it used language like "reasonable suspicion", which one might reasonably conclude would lead to racial profiling. The amended version removes this language and merely gives local law enforcement the ability to enforce the federal law that's been on the books for decades. Any feined outrage about it now is just political theater.

hello pot my name is kettle...:lmao

[jacobdrj]

Windsor? I went there once back in 99. The Canadians were quite rigorous about checking my paperwork, much more so than the American side. I'm sure that changed after 9/11.

Weird, because the Canadians never gave me a hard time, it was US customs coming back that always got me stopped.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

In my own highly unscientific talks with people around me most people I know support the law but worry about the way it will be enforced by actual human beings, regardless of how the new draft is worded. There are good cops out there, and there are racist ass cops out there.

[TeyshaBlue]

I did my own informal poll, and found that 95% of people wish scientists were working on a way to transform sand into ice cream.

Cmon government! Get some research going on that!

I was one of the 1% that were undecided.

Not sure I'm ready for gritty ice cream.:depressed

[TeyshaBlue]

The East Valley Tribune? :lol

It's a Phoenix paper, Dan. Fairly relevant to the discussion. Sit down, now.

[rjv]

is this a might makes right claim ?

[nkdlunch]

ppl still beleive in polls?

:lmao

[DarrinS]

The majority of people didnt want Civil Rights also.

What is your point?


You should go check out the voting (by party) for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[LnGrrrR]

I was one of the 1% that were undecided.

Not sure I'm ready for gritty ice cream.:depressed

Did I mention it's free?

After all, it is the government providing it. :) :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

You should go check out the voting (by party) for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The intellectually honest answer would be that many of the southern democrats eventually became republicans and the south became soild red states...

[Wild Cobra]

The intellectually honest answer would be that many of the southern democrats eventually became republicans and the south became soild red states...
Is that what the schools of indoctrination teach you?

[rjv]

i think that is actually what history taught him. maybe it was an ethnic studies class that leans towards painting whites as oppressors.

[FromWayDowntown]

The majority of people didnt want Civil Rights also.

What is your point?

There's a reason that this nation doesn't operate on the principle of pure majority rule; there's an enduring brilliance to the Framers' decision to make this a Constitutional/democratic republic.

Hell, we can even elect a President who lost the national popular vote . . . .

[angrydude]

typical response to news board liberals don't like: move along, nothing to see here.

[hater]

I'm sure most americans supported slavery back in 1860 as well

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is that what the schools of indoctrination teach you?

are you denying it?

[DarrinS]

The intellectually honest answer would be that many of the southern democrats eventually became republicans and the south became soild red states...


Robert KKK Byrd voted against it. He's still a Dem in office, no?


Oh, and Al Gore Sr. voted against it.


Are you still intellectually honest?

[DarrinS]

I'm sure most americans supported slavery back in 1860 as well



Best analogy ever. :rolleyes

[Das Texan]

I'm sure most americans supported slavery back in 1860 as well



pretty much. most people were perfectly fine with slaves existing, as long as slavery didnt spread anywhere else.

[2centsworth]

whoever compares this law to slavery is kookoo for coco puffs.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Robert KKK Byrd voted against it. He's still a Dem in office, no?


Oh, and Al Gore Sr. voted against it.


Are you still intellectually honest?

so you're going to play stupid..got it..




New York moderate Nelson Rockefeller's defeat in the presidential primary election marked the beginning of the end of moderates and liberals in the Republican Party.

Clearer political and ideological lines began to be drawn between the Democrat and Republican parties as moderates and liberals converted from Republican to Democrat. Conservatives in the Democratic Party began to move to the increasingly conservative Republican Party.





By 1952, southern Democrats had concluded that they could exercise more influence through the Democratic Party and therefore returned to the fold. They remained in the Democratic fold, restive, until the candidacy of Republican conservative Barry Goldwater liberated them in 1964 by refreshing some of the Dixiecrat ideologies and therefore accelerated the transition from a solid South for the Democrats to one for the Republicans. Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican Party that year and remained there until his death in December 2003.



http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1751.html

[admiralsnackbar]

Best analogy ever. :rolleyes

Since the implicit argument in presenting the poll results is that the law is good because the majority supports it, it seems perfectly reasonable to present an example where the majority failed miserably.

[DarrinS]

Since the implicit argument in presenting the poll results is that the law is good because the majority supports it, it seems perfectly reasonable to present an example where the majority failed miserably.


Obama is good because he won the majority vote.

[hater]

whoever compares this law to slavery is kookoo for coco puffs.

whoever thinks I was comparing that is pretty dense.

I was comparing the fact that the majority of americans supported slavery back in the day, and they were morally wrong. So it's possible they are morally wrong here too.

[hater]

Since the implicit argument in presenting the poll results is that the law is good because the majority supports it, it seems perfectly reasonable to present an example where the majority failed miserably.

bingo.

[hater]

Obama is good because he won the majority vote.

now you are getting it

[jack sommerset]

whoever thinks I was comparing that is pretty dense.

I was comparing the fact that the majority of americans supported slavery back in the day, and they were morally wrong. So it's possible they are morally wrong here too.

LoL. You are comparing it to slavery thus is why you brought up slavery.

[George Gervin's Afro]

LoL. You are comparing it to slavery thus is why you brought up slavery.

why am i not surprised that went way over your head..

[jack sommerset]

why am i not surprised that went way over your head..

You mean over your head, genius.

[admiralsnackbar]

Obama is good because he won the majority vote.

Talk about bad analogies... we elect people, we don't elect legislation.

[DarrinS]

whoever thinks I was comparing that is pretty dense.

I was comparing the fact that the majority of americans supported slavery back in the day, and they were morally wrong. So it's possible they are morally wrong here too.


I'm not saying you are wrong, but where did you get this fact? Was there a poll?

[DarrinS]

Talk about bad analogies... we elect people, we don't elect legislation.


You know those people that make laws? How do they get their jobs?

[admiralsnackbar]

You know those people that make laws? How do they get their jobs?

People elect people not laws. Apples and oranges.

[DarrinS]

People elect people not laws. Apples and oranges.


I guess you're right, because lawmakers sometimes pass laws the majority of people DON'T like. This tends not to be good for the lawmakers (see Nov. 2010).

[admiralsnackbar]

Evasion.

[2centsworth]

whoever thinks I was comparing that is pretty dense.

I was comparing the fact that the majority of americans supported slavery back in the day, and they were morally wrong. So it's possible they are morally wrong here too.

you are backtracking like a mofo. Racism had nothing to do with your post :lmao

[jack sommerset]

you are backtracking like a mofo. Racism had nothing to do with your post :lmao

No shit. Out of all the things he could have compared it to(George, you get it yet?), he went with SLAVERY!

Now I am hearing some high school basketball team in Illinois won't let the girls go to Arizona to play in a tournament. Kids and politics do not mix. The girls even raised the money themselves and some cunthole says they can't go because of their politics.

Let me know when the law says the police can ask someone for id because of the color of your skin.

[ChumpDumper]

No shit. Out of all the things he could have compared it to(George, you get it yet?), he went with SLAVERY!

Now I am hearing some high school basketball team in Illinois won't let the girls go to Arizona to play in a tournament. Kids and politics do not mix. The girls even raised the money themselves and some cunthole says they can't go because of their politics.

Let me know when the law says the police can ask someone for id because of the color of your skin.Tell me under what conditions the law says they can ask. What is reasonable?

[word]

It's funny how each side pulls out these arguments depending on the issue.

[jack sommerset]

Tell me under what conditions the law says they can ask. What is reasonable?

Again, go google.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, go google.Again, if you can't explain it, just say so.

[jack sommerset]

Again, if you can't explain it, just say so.

Have you read the law?

[ChumpDumper]

Have you read the law?Yes.

[jack sommerset]

Yes.

Good, then you need no explanation of the law.

[ChumpDumper]

Good, then you need no explanation of the law.Sure I do. I need to know the conditions an officer would consider before asking for proof of citizenship.

Can you explain those conditions?

[jack sommerset]

Sure I do. I need to know the conditions an officer would consider before asking for proof of citizenship.

Can you explain those conditions?

It's in the law. Did you really read it?

[ChumpDumper]

It's in the law. Did you really read it?The text of the law gives no examples.

Did you really read it?

Point out the examples given in the text of the law.

[jack sommerset]

The text of the law gives no examples.

Did you really read it?

Point out the examples given in the text of the law.

Arizona's words not mine

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United1 States.

Do you have a specific example you think this law is bad?

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't you use your words?

I think it could be a bad law if proponents of it can't give an example of the law in action in their own words.

Either that or those proponents are idiots.

Give me an example of the law in action in your own words.

[jack sommerset]

Why can't you use your words?

I think it could be a bad law if proponents of it can't give an example of the law in action in their own words.

Either that or those proponents are idiots.

Give me an example of the law in action in your own words.

The law say's it best.

What kind of example are you looking for? Any?

[ChumpDumper]

The law say's it best.It gives no examples. You would know that had you actually read the law. It is clear you haven't.


What kind of example are you looking for? Any?Any you could actually come up with yourself that that includes reasonable suspicion concerning a person who has broken no law.

[jack sommerset]

It gives no examples. You would know that had you actually read the law. It is clear you haven't.

Any you could actually come up with yourself that that includes reasonable suspicion concerning a person who has broken no law.

I have the law right in front of me. Where in your world says there has to be given examples when writing laws?

You now have stipulations of potential examples I can give you. Just tell us why you think this law is bad. Your words.

[ChumpDumper]

I have the law right in front of me. Where in your world says there has to be given examples when writing laws?So you concede it gives no examples.

Thanks.


You now have stipulations of potential examples I can give you.If you can't give an example that fits when you have the law right in front of you, just say so.


Just tell us why you think this law is bad. Your words.I already said it could be bad because proponents of the law who claim to have read it and have it right in front of them can't even come up with one example of the law in action when it comes to a person who has broken no law.

You had that right in front of you too.

[jack sommerset]

So you concede it gives no examples after insisting it did.

Thanks.

If you can't give an example that fits when you have the law right in front of you, just say so.

I already said it could be bad because proponents of the law who claim to have read it and have it right in front of them can't even come up with one example of the law in action when it comes to a person who has broken no law.

You had that right in front of you too.


I "concede" laws don't need to give examples. That is reality. Something you should look up and eventually come back too. I can give examples but you put stipulations on those.

Are you against this law? Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

I "concede" laws don't need to give examples. That is reality. Something you should look up and eventually come back too. I can give examples but you put stipulations on those.So you can give an example that meets those stipulations?

Yes or no.


Are you against this law? Yes or no.One need not be for or against a law. I don't enough real benefit to support it, nor do I see enough potential for abuse to be against it. As it is, it looks like a lot of talk tough that will achieve not much at all. Looks like no one is up to the task of persuading me with potential examples either way.

Good job, ST political crew! :tu

[jack sommerset]

So you can't give an example that meets those stipulations?

Yes or no.

One need not be for or against a law. I don't enough real benefit to support it, nor do I see enough potential for abuse to be against it. As it is, it looks like a lot of talk tough that will achieve not much at all. Looks like no one is up to the task of persuading me with potential examples either way.

Good job, ST political crew! :tu

Your stipulations would not be Arizona's written law.

Don't break the law and if you do, have id.

Good job wannabe mod of ST! :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Your stipulations would not be Arizona's written law.

Don't break the law and if you do, have id.

Good job wannabe mod of ST! :tuThe law does not state that the person suspected has to break the law to be asked to provide proof of citizenship.


B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCYOF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

And I don't want to be a mod. It was a pain when I was. People like you whined even more.

[jack sommerset]

The law does not state that the person suspected has to break the law to be asked to provide proof of citizenship.



And I don't want to be a mod. It was a pain when I was. People like you whined even more.

Never said it did. What's your problem with the law?

People like me?

[ChumpDumper]

Never said it did.So you agree it is in Arizona's written law. Great.


What's your problem with the law?Already stated.

It's right in front of you.


People like me?Yes, people like you.

[jack sommerset]

Already stated.

It's right in front of you.

Yes, people like you.

"If's" is your anwser. Why don't you like the law?

[jack sommerset]

"If's" is your anwser. Why don't you like the law?

People like me. Be specific?

[ChumpDumper]

"If's" is your anwser. Why don't you like the law?Already stated. It's right in front of you in the text of this page on the internets.

You are proving it over and over again.

Thanks.

[jack sommerset]

You put stipulations on that answer. So you don't know if you like the bill or not. That's cool.

[ChumpDumper]

You put stipulations on that answer. So you don't know if you like the bill or not. That's cool.That's exactly what I said.

It was right in front of you.

[z0sa]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=

This should answer your questions, ChumpDumper.


There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable suspicion."

"Reasonable suspicion", furthermore (same article):


Reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent.

In other words, being a Mexican with poor English skills doesn't mean a cop can ask you for ID. Unless he has a semi-legitimate reason to think you've committed or crime or are planning one, one has no law backing in asking "for your papers."

So, the majority of your examples will come from petty crimes or traffic violations illegals commit.

[ChumpDumper]

So it sounds about as impotent in practice as I thought.

Thanks.

[z0sa]

So it sounds about as impotent in practice as I thought.

Thanks.

At least their peacekeepers can do a little more of their job now. The more redtape cops get caught up in, the more crime we suffer. And I bet it's more effective than some would suggest or believe.

[admiralsnackbar]

At least their peacekeepers can do a little more of their job now. The more redtape cops get caught up in, the more crime we suffer.

Do say more.

[Nbadan]

Isn't crime down in most statistical categories? What 'more' crime are we suffering? El Paso, right across the border from one of the most violent cities in Mexico is one of the safest cities in Texas...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Never said it did. What's your problem with the law?

People like me?

:stupid:

[George Gervin's Afro]

You mean over your head, genius.

look jack comparing slavery to this legislation wasn't the intention of his post. it was an example of an issue that the majority favored at one time. the issue isn't slavery ,as you want it to be, rather it's the notion that slavery was inherently bad... the majority favored something that was inherently bad...


got it now?

[DarrinS]

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/files/pdf/hb2162.pdf

C. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

[DarrinS]

look jack comparing slavery to this legislation wasn't the intention of his post. it was an example of an issue that the majority favored at one time. the issue isn't slavery ,as you want it to be, rather it's the notion that slavery was inherently bad... the majority favored something that was inherently bad...


got it now?


Why do you guys keep saying a majority favored slavery? Is there some data to back this up?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why do you guys keep saying a majority favored slavery? Is there some data to back this up?

slavery was an accepted practice at one time... you do know that don't you?

[DarrinS]

slavery was an accepted practice at one time... you do know that don't you?


google: Civil War

[TeyshaBlue]

Isn't crime down in most statistical categories? What 'more' crime are we suffering? El Paso, right across the border from one of the most violent cities in Mexico is one of the safest cities in Texas...

Which makes El Paso sort of an outlier. Can you name any other major cities with one of the most violent cities right across the border?

A funny thing about El Paso....it possesses few suburbs, so the stats get smoothed by the outlying, "burb" areas. When you look at Dallas stats, you don't get Highland Park, Plano, Addison, Richardson, etc added into the mix. I think if you could take the metropolitan area of El Paso and parse their stats, then EP would probably rank mid-pack.

I still haven't sorted out where I stand on this law. But I do acknowledge that AZ has a different perspective on this than TX or CA.

[2centsworth]

Isn't crime down in most statistical categories? What 'more' crime are we suffering? El Paso, right across the border from one of the most violent cities in Mexico is one of the safest cities in Texas...

I read somewhere that illegals in "Phoenix?" County are 9% of the population, but commit more than 30% of the crimes.

Many Mexicans are fleeing their country because of the rising violence and kidnappings.

Gov. Perry activated the border violence spillover plan a couple of months ago.

It's a huge problem that we have mostly ignored.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/files/pdf/hb2162.pdf

C. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
So what can they consider?

[ChumpDumper]

I read somewhere that illegals in "Phoenix?" County are 9% of the population, but commit more than 30% of the crimes.

Many Mexicans are fleeing their country because of the rising violence and kidnappings.

Gov. Perry activated the border violence spillover plan a couple of months ago.

It's a huge problem that we have mostly ignored.Is it?


Crime has dropped all across the country since then, but the decrease has been as fast or faster in Arizona. The rate of property crimes in the state, for example, has plummeted 43% since 1995, compared with 30% nationwide.

That's no surprise to those who study immigration — both sides, whether for or against increased immigration, agree that immigrants tend to commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans....

....Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris said about 10% of his department's arrests are illegal immigrants — a number close to the estimated percentage of undocumented migrants in the local population — but the Maricopa County sheriff's office, which runs the jail for Phoenix and surrounding cities, said 20% of its inmates are illegal immigrants. Fifteen percent of state prisoners are illegal immigrants.

Now, there are certainly some serious high-profile crimes committed by illegal immigrants that get a lot of attention, but some might be exaggerating the scope of the problem.


Phoenix has become a hub of human trafficking, and now it has kidnapping numbers that rival cities in Mexico because of smugglers who hold illegal immigrants hostage in drop houses in the city. The city's crime rates are comparable with those of other big cities, but the presence of well-armed trafficking groups colors the picture....

....Harris, the Phoenix police chief, who opposes SB 1070, said proponents of cracking down on illegal immigrants vastly overstated that population's criminality.

"Saying that if you get rid of the illegal immigrants, you'll get rid of 80% of the crime, which I've heard, that's not true," he said, dismissing the rhetoric as political opportunism. "All you have to do in Arizona is come out with anything that's anti-immigrant and you will be in good shape in the polls."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/03/nation/la-na-arizona-crime-20100503/2

[rjv]

I read somewhere that illegals in "Phoenix?" County are 9% of the population, but commit more than 30% of the crimes.




now that's persuasive!

[admiralsnackbar]

I read somewhere that illegals in "Phoenix?" County are 9% of the population, but commit more than 30% of the crimes.


I also have to wonder how "somewhere" got a population metric on a group that doesn't fill out censi or polls?

[jack sommerset]

1 out of 5 peeps in county jail there are illegals. 1 out of 7 in state prisons there are illegals.

[ElNono]

1 out of 5 peeps in county jail there are illegals. 1 out of 7 in state prisons there are illegals.

So putting even more in there is really going to fix this immigration problem?
Don't forget cops can't deport anybody...

[rjv]

1 out of 5 peeps in county jail there are illegals. 1 out of 7 in state prisons there are illegals.

and yet while the illegal immigration population has increased 5 times over the violent and property crime rates of the state have continued to steadily decline.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

[2centsworth]

now that's persuasive!

your first mistake was thinking I'm trying to persuade you.


These are the statistics I found per Maricopa County(includes Phoenix) District Attorney's Office. 9% Illegal population disproportionately commit crimes.

http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif33.5% of those sentenced for manufacture, sale or transport of drugs. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif35.8% of those sentenced for kidnapping. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif20.3% of those sentenced for felony DUI. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif16.5% of those sentenced for violent crimes. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif18.5% of those sentenced for property crimes. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif44% of those sentenced for forgery and fraud. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif85.3% of those convicted of criminal impersonation or false ID. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif96% of those convicted of human smuggling.


As far as the drop in Violent Crimes for Phoenix from 2004 to 2008. That's true too, but here is what the county attorney had to say about that

"Thomas also attributed the lower crime rates to a 30 percent decrease in illegal immigration over the same period, citing recent figures by the Center for Immigration Studies."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/08/13/20090813politics-crimedown0813.html#ixzz0nwgccfVY

[rjv]

your first mistake was thinking I'm trying to persuade you.


These are the statistics I found per Maricopa County(includes Phoenix) District Attorney's Office. 9% Illegal population disproportionately commit crimes.

http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif33.5% of those sentenced for manufacture, sale or transport of drugs. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif35.8% of those sentenced for kidnapping. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif20.3% of those sentenced for felony DUI. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif16.5% of those sentenced for violent crimes. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif18.5% of those sentenced for property crimes. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif44% of those sentenced for forgery and fraud. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif85.3% of those convicted of criminal impersonation or false ID. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif96% of those convicted of human smuggling.

what are these a percentage of? these stats make no sense. 33.5 % of what ? and more importantly where are these stats from. they are not from the link that you provided.


As far as the drop in Violent Crimes for Phoenix from 2004 to 2008. That's true too, but here is what the county attorney had to say about that

"Thomas also attributed the lower crime rates to a 30 percent decrease in illegal immigration over the same period, citing recent figures by the Center for Immigration Studies."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/08/13/20090813politics-crimedown0813.html#ixzz0nwgccfVY


thanks for the link. i think the most telling part was:

Thomas did not offer specific evidence showing the illegal-immigrant population decrease is linked to the decrease in crime.

James Holmes, a spokesperson for the Phoenix Police Department, hesitated to link the decrease in crime rates with a decline in illegal immigration. "You can't put a finger on that," Holmes said. "You can't say that one is a cause of the other."

of course not, especially since over the years there have been too many numerical fluctuations to then suddenly use only a 2 year window as the meat of your argument. how would you explain the preceding decade?

[Nbadan]

He can't...the numbers just don't support the wing-nut talking point that more illegals automatically equals more crime...but that won't stop them from repeating it...

[rjv]

your first mistake was thinking I'm trying to persuade you.


These are the statistics I found per Maricopa County(includes Phoenix) District Attorney's Office. 9% Illegal population disproportionately commit crimes.

http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif33.5% of those sentenced for manufacture, sale or transport of drugs. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif35.8% of those sentenced for kidnapping. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif20.3% of those sentenced for felony DUI. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif16.5% of those sentenced for violent crimes. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif18.5% of those sentenced for property crimes. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif44% of those sentenced for forgery and fraud. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif85.3% of those convicted of criminal impersonation or false ID. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif96% of those convicted of human smuggling.




these numbers make no sense in this context. 35.3 and 20.3 % of what? and where is this link from?

and go figure that illegals would disproportionately be involved in crimes involving forged documents and false IDs.

[2centsworth]

these numbers make no sense in this context. 35.3 and 20.3 % of what? and where is this link from?

and go figure that illegals would disproportionately be involved in crimes involving forged documents and false IDs.

you're dumb, you don't understand the first part, but understand the second.

You made up your mind before reading the law or knowing the statistics and you're working backwards.

again, I'm not trying to persuade you or nut job Dan of anything. You want to provide statistics and well thought out arguments fine, I'll listen and formulate an opinion later. However, I take it you're trying to win something here :lol

[Winehole23]

And you're not? Make your case, 2cents.

[Winehole23]

Are you just writing on the bathroom stall? :lol

[rjv]

you're dumb, you don't understand the first part, but understand the second.

You made up your mind before reading the law or knowing the statistics and you're working backwards.

again, I'm not trying to persuade you or nut job Dan of anything. You want to provide statistics and well thought out arguments fine, I'll listen and formulate an opinion later. However, I take it you're trying to win something here :lol


well you have convinced people of one thing: that you don't know what you're talking about

[2centsworth]

And you're not? Make your case, 2cents.


I'm not making a case, just trying to point out facts. Right now I feel like Solomon in Ecclesiastes, so your bathroom stall analogy may be spot on.
(http://www.learnthebible.org/Ecclesiastes%20-%20Introduction.htm)

[2centsworth]

well you have convinced people of one thing: that you don't know what you're talking about

I feel like you not understanding is a huge loss to mankind:lmao

[Sisk]

lol comparing slavery to illegal immigrants

immigrants come willingly..... i would type more but i'm lazy

just think for yourselves

[smeagol]

ducks wants to shoot all Illegal Aliens . . .

[jack sommerset]

ducks wants to shoot all Illegal Aliens . . .

What do you want to do?

[Nbadan]

tnfPfkO7I5I

[rjv]

I feel like you not understanding is a huge loss to mankind:lmao

i guess the deference to this redundancy is an admission that any expectation to get a link, or further explanation of your otherwise completely meaningless and mathematically inconsistent statistics, will go unfulfilled.

at least i didn't get some narcissistic post of old testament self-reference instead.

[Sisk]

So my question to dumper, gervin, etc.

What do YOU want to do about illegal immigrants in the United States? Doing nothing isn't a qualifying answer.

[rjv]

http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif33.5% of those sentenced for manufacture, sale or transport of drugs. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif35.8% of those sentenced for kidnapping. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif20.3% of those sentenced for felony DUI. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif16.5% of those sentenced for violent crimes. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif18.5% of those sentenced for property crimes. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif44% of those sentenced for forgery and fraud. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif85.3% of those convicted of criminal impersonation or false ID. http://www.patriotunion.org/_themes/patriot-union-theme2/folbul1.gif96% of those convicted of human smuggling.

the best i could do was link this stat to other forums and then to a patriot site, so the origin of these numbers could not be found. the reason it would have been significant to get the actual source of these numbers is because there are many out there circulated that are not very precise and use hyperbolic language. for instance, the federal bureau of prisons does not keep figures on illegal immigrants. what solid numbers are out there point to a much smaller figure. a department of justice report from 2003 indicated that only 1.6 percent of the state and federal prison populations were under immigration and customs enforcement jurisdiction, and thus known to be illegal immigrants. half of these prisoners were detained only because they were here illegally, not for other crimes.

the bureau of prisons does follow prisoners by offense when information is available. and by that metric, 10.7 percent of prisoners in federal jails were incarcerated for immigration offenses in 2009. in 2006, the figure was 10.2 percent. ( http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#2 )

also, upon closer examination you will see that most of these crimes occur within the context of the act of crossing over to begin with. illegals are going to have forged documents, they are going to present false IDs and they are also going to be travling frequently with coyotes who are regarded as smugglers. the violence commited is almost always against illegals by the coyotes themselves who will often kidnap the illegals, steal from them or even committ violent acts against them.

this explains why the chief of police did not want to equate the decrease in violent crime to illegal immigration specifically. because they understand that to imply that violent crime is down would be misleading. what will decrease, if anything at all, will be the frequency of forgery offenses as well as violenct acts against illegals by coyotes. but this does not impact the non-illegal population with any significance at all.

[ChumpDumper]

So my question to dumper, gervin, etc.

What do YOU want to do about illegal immigrants in the United States? Doing nothing isn't a qualifying answer.I say this every time: Go after the employers.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So my question to dumper, gervin, etc.

What do YOU want to do about illegal immigrants in the United States? Doing nothing isn't a qualifying answer.

take away the incentive that keeps them coming here.

[2centsworth]

i guess the deference to this redundancy is an admission that any expectation to get a link, or further explanation of your otherwise completely meaningless and mathematically inconsistent statistics, will go unfulfilled.

at least i didn't get some narcissistic post of old testament self-reference instead.

there's a difference between what you want to be true and what is true.

here's your link
http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a.pdf

[Nbadan]

Got an Illegal immigration problem? Who's to blame?


SNIhBVbgtxM

[Sisk]

I say this every time: Go after the employers.

Ok, and when they're caught, then what? What do you do to the illegals that they've hired?


take away the incentive that keeps them coming here.

The incentive that Mexico is corrupt and in shambles? Nuke Mexico?

Take away that the U.S. >>>>>>> Mexico?
:wakeup

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ok, and when they're caught, then what? What do you do to the illegals that they've hired?



The incentive that Mexico is corrupt and in shambles? Nuke Mexico?

Take away that the U.S. >>>>>>> Mexico?
:wakeup


the incentive is jobs you moron... were you born yesterday?

[rjv]

there's a difference between what you want to be true and what is true.

here's your link
http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a.pdf

and so put into context what one sees is that we have crimes committed dispoportionately because the act of crossing illegally is already a crime itself. most of the property crimes and violent crimes are commited by the smugglers themselves ('coyotes'). the mexican cartels have gotten involved in smuggling the illegals over and they often fill illegals backpacks with marijuana, kidnap the illegals and hold them hostage, rob them, and commit violent acts against them.

that is the predominant victims of the crimes committed by illegals are the illegals themselves.

undoubtedly this has an economic impact upon the states but in terms of how illegals impact crime in non-illegal communites? it has very if any impact and that is a point that is lost in arbitrarily cited statistics.

to assume that is the illegal is the culprit, as opposed to understanding that those involved in getting illegals over here have changed dramatically, is to undermine the issue. but as long as the impetus that drives the economic motivation to spur migration from mexico to the US exists then so will illegal crossings.

assertions that illegals are exponentially more inclined to commit crime based on statistics not placed into context does not serve to address the fundamental issue, which is: why is that illegals are so compelled to cross over despite the great risk to themselves ? and, what can be done to alter these factors? this is really where immigration reform needs to begin.

[Sisk]

the incentive is jobs you moron... were you born yesterday?

so just eliminate their jobs all together? what the fuck?

and, as you've avoided twice now.. What do you do once you "eliminate" these jobs they have? What do you do with them after this?

[2centsworth]

most of the property crimes and violent crimes are commited by the smugglers themselves ('coyotes').

Link?



the mexican cartels have gotten involved in smuggling the illegals over and they often fill illegals backpacks with marijuana, kidnap the illegals and hold them hostage, rob them, and commit violent acts against them.

Link?



that is the predominant victims of the crimes committed by illegals are the illegals themselves.

Link?



undoubtedly this has an economic impact upon the states but in terms of how illegals impact crime in non-illegal communites? it has very if any impact and that is a point that is lost in arbitrarily cited statistics.

No entiendo?



to assume that is the illegal is the culprit, as opposed to understanding that those involved in getting illegals over here have changed dramatically, is to undermine the issue. but as long as the impetus that drives the economic motivation to spur migration from mexico to the US exists then so will illegal crossings.

50% of the illegal immigration is coming through Arizona. Easy to tell them what to do. Federal Government has failed here.




assertions that illegals are exponentially more inclined to commit crime it's not an innate trait.



based on statistics not placed into context does not serve to address the fundamental issue, which is: why is that illegals are so compelled to cross over despite the great risk to themselves ? and, what can be done to alter these factors? this is really where immigration reform needs to begin.

Are we still talking about the Arizona Law? You're way off in lala land.

[Winehole23]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/higher-immigration--lower-crime-15297

[admiralsnackbar]

I'm still curious how the %.9 metric was arrived at when illegals don't participate in polls.

[Winehole23]

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=403

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, and when they're caught, then what?Prosecute them.
What do you do to the illegals that they've hired?Deport them.

[TeyshaBlue]

the incentive is jobs you moron... were you born yesterday?

I think our broad buffet of social services probably ranks up there with jobs, GGA.

[z0sa]

I think our broad buffet of social services probably ranks up there with jobs, GGA.

Duh (to some.. not others). Mexico is a piss poor, battle ridden third world country with way too many people and in the midst of political chaos. Just living in America and benefitting wherever you can from the system is a much, much higher standard of life. There'll never be an end to the immigration problem without drastic measures simply because Mexico sucks so much.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think our broad buffet of social services probably ranks up there with jobs, GGA.

If you stop hiring them they will stop coming. This notion that this problem can be solved overnight is stupid (see sisk) Once they get here and find a job the social services kick in (I am assuming). I am not naive to think that there aren't those who are here for social programs but the majority are here for jobs. I would create annual work visas that have to be renewed. Once you have had your visas renewed (theoretically) 5 times then you should at least have a shot at a pathway to citzenship. If you do not have a violent criminal history you should be able to work your way towards citzienship should you want it. This would include learning english and proving that you are accountable and dependable.


If you are caught more than once enering the country illegally you will forever lose the ability to work or live in the United States.

[z0sa]

I think there's a lot of good ideas floating, but again, the problem is Mexico, not big business hiring cheap labor. They do it all over the entire world to save a buck, just think how gleefully they hire local workers for the same price. Nothing will change that because there's too many people, too many companies, too many illegals, and the government would have to be nearly 100% socialist in order to have the wide sweeping capability to put a stop to it, on any level in any degree.

The only way to solve our illegal problem is to do it at the ground level - our cops and citizens gotta do the cleaning up. Sucks, because those guys and girls crossing over just want a better life. But at whose expense?

[rjv]

Link?



Link?



Link?

i would have figured you already knew that phoenix has changed laws in such a way that they have criminalized many aspects of illegal immigration that were not previously criminal.

"In 2006, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio interpreted a state law making human smuggling a felony as also making it a crime to be smuggled, and he began prosecuting truckloads of illegal immigrants being transported through the state. Arpaio has made catching illegal immigrants a priority."

[Jack] Harris, the Phoenix police chief, who opposes SB 1070, said proponents of cracking down on illegal immigrants vastly overstated that population's criminality. "Saying that if you get rid of the illegal immigrants, you'll get rid of 80% of the crime, which I've heard, that's not true," he said, dismissing the rhetoric as political opportunism. "All you have to do in Arizona is come out with anything that's anti-immigrant and you will be in good shape in the polls." What most in law enforcement here do agree on is that the victims of crime by illegal immigrants tend to be other immigrants. ( http://mobile.latimes.com/inf/infomo?view=page1&feed:a=latimes_1min&feed:c=nationnews&feed:i=53586574&nopaging=1)

also, since phoenix is so close to the border it is an ideal place to locate "drop houses". this is where illegals are held by smugglers for ransom by coyotes working for cartels. (http://www.crimefreeaz.com/drophouses/ )

cartels often exploit the illegal immigrants by forcing them into economic bondage or prostitution, U.S. officials say. In recent years, illegal immigrants have been forced to pay exorbitant fees for being smuggled into the United States by the cartels’ networks of transportation, communications, logistics and financial operatives, according to officials.
Many more illegal immigrants are raped, killed or physically and emotionally scarred along the way, authorities say. Organized smuggling groups are stealing entire safe houses from rivals or trucks full of “chickens” -- their term for human cargo -- so they can resell them or exploit them further, according to these officials and documents...

...The cartels began moving into human smuggling in the late 1990s, initially by taxing the coyotes as they led bands of a few dozen people across cartel-controlled turf near the border. After U.S. officials stepped up border enforcement after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the price of passage increased and the cartels got more directly involved, using the routes they have long used for smuggling drugs north and cash and weapons south, authorities said.

Sometimes they loaded up their human cargo with backpacks full of marijuana. In many cases, they smuggled illegal immigrants between the two marijuana-growing seasons, authorities said...

...In Arizona, the cartels grossed an estimated $2 billion last year on smuggling humans, Goddard said. In recent years, the U.S. government has taken significant steps to go after illegal immigrant smugglers on a global scale, setting up task forces, launching public awareness campaigns and creating a Human Smuggling & Trafficking Center to fuse intelligence from various agencies.

But at the southern border, the effort has stumbled, in part because Homeland Security and various Justice Department agencies have overlapping responsibilities and are engaging in turf battles to keep them, Goddard and numerous other federal and state officials said.

(http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/17768)




No entiendo?

what is not to understand? the point is that most of the crime committed by illegals is towards the illegals themselves. the more violent aspects are by the smugglers and the other felonies just by virtue of being an illegal in of itself.


50% of the illegal immigration is coming through Arizona. Easy to tell them what to do. Federal Government has failed here.

california, texas, florida, new york and illinois all have more illegals than arizona. in fact, california has 6 times as many and texas 4 times as many. arizona has 4 %. the federal government has failed on immigration reform but the blame is shared equally with the mexican government and corporate america. ( http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf)



it's not an innate trait. Are we still talking about the Arizona Law? You're way off in lala land.

no one ever mentioned genetics. and yes we are speaking of the arizona law.

if one makes an argument for immigration reform that argument will receive major opposition, from certain opponents of illegal immigration, because the impression would have been unfairly created that illegals are more bent on committing crimes here than they are in seeking employment. this is just not true.

[admiralsnackbar]

if one makes an argument for immigration reform that argument will receive major opposition, from certain opponents of illegal immigration, because the impression would have been unfairly created that illegals are more bent on committing crimes here than they are in seeking employment. this is just not true.


Agreed. It's both cheaper and more profitable, not to mention safer (legally speaking) to remain in MX.

Good post, man.

[z0sa]

the federal government has failed on immigration reform but the blame is shared equally with the mexican government and corporate america.

I don't disagree entirely, but it's time to stop blaming the Mexican government and do something about it. They can't stop drug cartels from overrunning well defended government buildings for chrissakes, and that's right across the border.

I don't mean send more troops on a specific mission (even though only God knows why we're fighting huge, costly wars abroad yet can't keep the homeland's borders secure and safe).

We need to end the war on drugs, legalize all (or many drugs), and tax the shit out of em. New cash cow, billions saved from the war being ended and many less prisoners. It's not this simple, but generally it's the best way to move forward as currently structured.

As for big business, they'll do anything to increase their profit margin. We know this. I can't support their standing, but I will support the principle behind it: money makes capitalism go. As long as there's more profit to be made, big business will do anything, anything. And since some businesses are deemed too large to fail, we should stop trying to even fix the problem from that end.

[admiralsnackbar]

The only way we're going to stem the flow of immigrants is to invest heavily in Mexican manufacturing and education/educational policy, and as Zosa mentioned, legalize drugs so that honest people can feel safe enough to work and study in their country.

The MX government has proven time and time again that it has no effective means of -- or interest in -- creating a stable, growing middle class, so the US needs to step up and grow that economy itself from the border down as much as through political proxies in the DF.

There are good reasons to do this besides alleviating illegal immigration, too -- it would widen the market for US goods, and perhaps even ultimately make our Southern neighbors better political allies.

But given we wouldn't see returns for at least a decade, and given our own economy is eating shit, I doubt this will be a popular position for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, any overnight solution is necessarily fool's gold because it won't address the cause for the mass migration. Just like the war on drugs.

[TeyshaBlue]

If you stop hiring them they will stop coming. This notion that this problem can be solved overnight is stupid (see sisk) Once they get here and find a job the social services kick in (I am assuming). I am not naive to think that there aren't those who are here for social programs but the majority are here for jobs. I would create annual work visas that have to be renewed. Once you have had your visas renewed (theoretically) 5 times then you should at least have a shot at a pathway to citzenship. If you do not have a violent criminal history you should be able to work your way towards citzienship should you want it. This would include learning english and proving that you are accountable and dependable.


If you are caught more than once enering the country illegally you will forever lose the ability to work or live in the United States.

You know, that's a pretty good blueprint, GGA. I like the notion of work visas being renewed x number of times (5 seems a good number, btw) + a clean criminal record = entry to citizenship. I'm not sure about accountablitly and dependability metrics....that might be tough to quantize.
I think the kicker here is that the visa renewal method you suggest is predicated on a belief that citizenship is the goal of the avg. illegal worker. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case but I can't refute the notion one way or the other.
Regardless, your method seems to be more coherent than the Federal response.:)

[MiamiHeat]

primarily, all of this backlash is because of the economy.

when we prospered, everyone was kumbaya.

now that everyone has been hit hard in the wallet, off with everyone's motherfucking heads! mexicans, wall street, corporations, politicians!

[2centsworth]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/higher-immigration--lower-crime-15297

for being so smart you sure have no ideas of your own. Tell me what you think and back it up. Don't just post propaganda and expect me to blindly believe that crap like you do. Break it down in your own words and stop hiding behind other peoples opinion. Not much different than plagiarism.

[jack sommerset]

for being so smart you sure have no ideas of your own. Tell me what you think and back it up. Don't just post propaganda and expect me to blindly believe that crap like you do. Break it down in your own words and stop hiding behind other peoples opinion. Not much different than plagiarism.

Get ready for some spam.

[NFGIII]

The only way we're going to stem the flow of immigrants is to invest heavily in Mexican manufacturing and education/educational policy, and as Zosa mentioned, legalize drugs so that honest people can feel safe enough to work and study in their country.

I don't think it's the only way but your solution has merit. But the Mexican culture - the rich and powerful - are going to have to "evolve" for this to have any long term effect. Imagine the USA doing this and the Mexican government runnig the show. The corruption and graft would be enormous, similar to when they nationalized the banks years ago. After the second audit several months later the balance sheet was hundreds of miilions in the red and the money was nowhere to be found. Imagine that!

If they only were to have a say in it in the capacity of consultants and auditors - it is their country - then expect to endure lots of haggling, bitching, moaning an groaning. Too much money involved for them not to want to get their "fair share", which usually means almost all of it.

As for the legalization of drugs maybe we can experiment along the lines that the Dutch employ now.




The MX government has proven time and time again that it has no effective means of -- or interest in -- creating a stable, growing middle class, so the US needs to step up and grow that economy itself from the border down as much as through political proxies in the DF.

This has been going on before it was called Mexico. The rich and the church have been in bed with one another from the get go. They have no want or need ot include anyone who doesn't already belong to their small elitist club.



There are good reasons to do this besides alleviating illegal immigration, too -- it would widen the market for US goods, and perhaps even ultimately make our Southern neighbors better political allies.

But given we wouldn't see returns for at least a decade, and given our own economy is eating shit, I doubt this will be a popular position for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, any overnight solution is necessarily fool's gold because it won't address the cause for the mass migration. Just like the war on drugs.

Agreed. It would be in the best interest of this country to make a more profitable and stable Mexico. But as noted above this is ognng to take a long time and there will have to be consessions made on the part of the upper class. Concessions that at this time I don't think they will want to make.

As for politicans making that kind of committment in the face of a bad economy I think it would take a courageous and persuasive person to pull it off. Tough choices call for tough people. Who steps up is the question.

And overnight solutions are just bandaids. This is going to take a lot of effort, money and people working together to fix this. But regardless of how you view the AZ bill at least somebody has finally taken action that might result in changing the staus quo. Our federal laws have essentialy not been enforced and this issue has been viewed more of as a nuisance rather than a possible threat to our country. Maybe this will stimulate some real dialogue about what to really do and a lead towards better solutions.

[ElNono]

In Trenton, issuing IDs for illegal immigrants (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/nyregion/17idcard.html)

Interesting article. One noteworthy excerpt from it:

A few states, including New Mexico and Washington, allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, but the number has fallen as more states require proof of lawful presence in the country.

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't think it's the only way but your solution has merit. But the Mexican culture - the rich and powerful - are going to have to "evolve" for this to have any long term effect. Imagine the USA doing this and the Mexican government runnig the show. The corruption and graft would be enormous, similar to when they nationalized the banks years ago. After the second audit several months later the balance sheet was hundreds of miilions in the red and the money was nowhere to be found. Imagine that!

If they only were to have a say in it in the capacity of consultants and auditors - it is their country - then expect to endure lots of haggling, bitching, moaning an groaning. Too much money involved for them not to want to get their "fair share", which usually means almost all of it.

As for the legalization of drugs maybe we can experiment along the lines that the Dutch employ now.




This has been going on before it was called Mexico. The rich and the church have been in bed with one another from the get go. They have no want or need ot include anyone who doesn't already belong to their small elitist club.



Agreed. It would be in the best interest of this country to make a more profitable and stable Mexico. But as noted above this is ognng to take a long time and there will have to be consessions made on the part of the upper class. Concessions that at this time I don't think they will want to make.

As for politicans making that kind of committment in the face of a bad economy I think it would take a courageous and persuasive person to pull it off. Tough choices call for tough people. Who steps up is the question.

And overnight solutions are just bandaids. This is going to take a lot of effort, money and people working together to fix this. But regardless of how you view the AZ bill at least somebody has finally taken action that might result in changing the staus quo. Our federal laws have essentialy not been enforced and this issue has been viewed more of as a nuisance rather than a possible threat to our country. Maybe this will stimulate some real dialogue about what to really do and a lead towards better solutions.

First off: thanks for not laughing me out. I think you make many fine points, and you're right to question the absolutist stance I took in my argument -- it will take more than my simplistic solution to solve anything. Anyway, for brevity's sake, I will only address what I disagree with.

+The Mexican elite enjoy and protect their colonial lifestyle, but they're also fiercely competitive with each other. I believe their greed and vanity can be exploited to undermine their culturally atavistic attachments to oligarchy by offering them new profit streams. If you can demonstrate why developing a middle class will actually behoove their business interests, they will support you. They're more interested with being rich than they are with being powerful, if that makes sense. They're global citizens and want to shine at that level more than on the MX stage.

+Graft in MX politics has to be taken as a given, not something we would create or enhance with American investment. By the same token, this same in-born graft would make it much easier to infiltrate Mexican politics than you suggest (Chavez had middling success trying to alter MX politics in 2006, and he was both cheap and heavy-handed. The CIA has the ability and means to be much more subtle). Moreover, it would be easy to sell American interests in Mexico because they would initially enrich the oligarchs.

+One of the few things Mexico has done right is separate Church from State (I'm happy to elaborate if you're curious). Most Mexicans are Catholic, but the Church has a surprisingly limited effect on politics compared to the US.

[NFGIII]

First off: thanks for not laughing me out. I think you make many fine points, and you're right to question the absolutist stance I took in my argument -- it will take more than my simplistic solution to solve anything. Anyway, for brevity's sake, I will only address what I disagree with.

It's a discussion board so throw things out and see what happens. The free flow of ideas and information only helps to enlighten us all. Or at least those who come and discuss with an open mind.




+The Mexican elite enjoy and protect their colonial lifestyle, but they're also fiercely competitive with each other. I believe their greed and vanity can be exploited to undermine their culturally atavistic attachments to oligarchy by offering them new profit streams. If you can demonstrate why developing a middle class will actually behoove their business interests, they will support you. They're more interested with being rich than they are with being powerful, if that makes sense. They're global citizens and want to shine at that level more than on the MX stage.

Point taken but so far they haven't wanted to encourage one. For all their education and worldly views they still hold onto their status and don't seem to care about sharing it with others. I believe as you do that it would be in their best interest to do so but do they/will they? So far the verdict is no. And this kind of change sometimes comes with a high price tag and due to circumstances beyound their control.




+Graft in MX politics has to be taken as a given, not something we would create or enhance with American investment. By the same token, this same in-born graft would make it much easier to infiltrate Mexican politics than you suggest (Chavez had middling success trying to alter MX politics in 2006, and he was both cheap and heavy-handed. The CIA has the ability and means to be much more subtle). Moreover, it would be easy to sell American interests in Mexico because they would initially enrich the oligarchs.

Yeah, money talks and you know what walks. I tend to agree that pandering to their basic greed would be the quickest way to make inroads.
But that becomes a tricky situation when you involve the CIA. I'm not the naive type that doesn't understand it's past involvement in the politics of other countries, the Shah and Iran, Allende and Chile just to name o few, but I'd wish for another type of fulcrum rather than that one. But we will use what we have and it has proven to be effective.





+One of the few things Mexico has done right is separate Church from State (I'm happy to elaborate if you're curious). Most Mexicans are Catholic, but the Church has a surprisingly limited effect on politics compared to the US.

Go for it. I'd be interested in knowing when the Vatican lost it's hold. From the beginning they have been heavy handed in Catholic nations to the detriment of the majority of those citizens. Not saying they became evil incarnate but you know the old saying about power and corruption. c

[Winehole23]

for being so smart you sure have no ideas of your own. Tell me what you think and back it up. Don't just post propaganda and expect me to blindly believe that crap like you do. Break it down in your own words and stop hiding behind other peoples opinion. Not much different than plagiarism.You mean like you did upstream when your stats were challenged? LOL.

I posted it for contrast. There's a difference of opinion about the relationship of illegal immigrants and crime. People who immigrate to work here have powerful incentives not to break the law, and some studies back that up.

I also think it's reasonable to point out, like the Commentary article does, that part of the problem is the onerousness of (the requirements) of legality, which makes illegality a more attractive path for many. Make the legal pathway easier, and more people will choose it.

[Winehole23]

Don't just post propaganda and expect me to blindly believe that crap like you do. Like you blindly believed and hid behind a Joe Arpaio press release?

Too funny, 2 cents.

[Winehole23]

My links were posted as contrast to yours, for anyone who might be interested enough to read. I find them just slightly more persuasive than a Maricopa Co. press release.

[2centsworth]

My links were posted as contrast to yours, for anyone who might be interested enough to read. I find them just slightly more persuasive than a Maricopa Co. press release.

the press release wasn't my opinion, it just contained statistics that I had posted. You on the other hand have no opinion, because you're not much of a thinker.

continue to allow other to do your talking for you :lol

[Winehole23]

the press release wasn't my opinion, it just contained statistics that I had posted.I posted statistics too, but somehow that makes me a moron and a coward. Interesting.


You on the other hand have no opinion, because you're not much of a thinker.Eh, I wasn't counting on your approval. I'll get by somehow.

[Winehole23]

What you cannot correct you can at least insult, eh? :toast

[Winehole23]

I'd be interested in knowing when the Vatican lost it's hold.During and after the fiercely anti-clerical Mexican Revolution. It's written into the law in a number of ways. For example, RC clergy cannot make legally binding marriages in MX. Only state magistrates have that power.

[George Gervin's Afro]

the press release wasn't my opinion, it just contained statistics that I had posted. You on the other hand have no opinion, because you're not much of a thinker.

continue to allow other to do your talking for you :lol

:lmao

you always provide a great laugh with your nonsense..

[Yonivore]

Has anyone in the Obama administration even bothered to read the law they're running around the world condemning?

[admiralsnackbar]

During and after the fiercely anti-clerical Mexican Revolution. It's written into the law in a number of ways. For example, RC clergy cannot make legally binding marriages in MX. Only state magistrates have that power.

I apologize for not having the time to adapt the ideas in this article to the conversation at hand, but this article is a quick expansion of Wino's post and would make a good starting-point for further investigation if there's interest.

http://mexfiles.net/2010/04/20/bishops-what-you-dont-know-cant-hurt-us/

Tangentially, I highly recommend this site for anybody interested in MX politics and culture.

[Winehole23]

Much appreciated, AS.

[rjv]

one of the problems is that the causes for the exponential rise in illegal immigration to the US over the past decade and a half are practically irreversible. for one, neoliberal trade policies have resulted in trade agreements such as NAFTA that essentially expedited the mass exodus from mexico into the US that we have seen since the mid 90's.

mexico has become an export-dependent economy, but this has not benefited most Mexicans. mexican manufacturing is based on a production model in which component parts are imported, then processed or assembled and then re-exported. the spillover effect of such operations on the broader economy is very limited.

ironically, one might argue that illegal migration is the only thing saving mexico from the ravages of NAFTA. illegal migration serves as an important safety valve. in the past 10 years, mexico's working-age population has expanded by about 1 million per year, but the number of jobs has expanded by only half as much. so the annual exodus of 500,000 to 1 million Mexicans reduces labor unrest inside the country.
but migration serves another even more important function: national financial safety net.

in 2005, mexicans in the US remitted some $20 billion home, about 3 percent of mexico's national income, according to a march story by knight ridder's washington bureau. according to that report, remittances now exceed tourism, oil and the maquiladoras as the country's top single source of foreign exchange.

NAFTA boasted that trade, not aid, would boost the lot of mexico and mexicans. ironically, the only thing that is keeping mexico afloat is aid from the US, via mexicans living in the united states, not trade.