Arizona = Arian Zone - Page 8

This year only? Because they never talked about this before. Ever...

Heck, I can go back to 2006 easily to a book by J.D. Hayworth called "Whatever It Takes" that talks directly on this issue. And it goes back much further than that. Search the internet, this has been a hot issue for many, many years. Just because somebody finally did something about it does not make this any kind of new issue. It just means that those who were not paying attention or had an interest (Politically/Monetarily) why we should allow illegals in are now getting riled up about it and it is much more prominent.

Are you really not paying attention?

I still cannot figure out why we cannot simply do the following two things:

1. Grant blanket amnesty (for illegally entering the country only...not for any other crimes a person might have committed) for all immigrants currently here.
2. Revise the immigration policy to allow anyone entry with some sensible limits like:
a. No one who has a felony criminal record in either country.
b. No one who has known infectious and communicable diseases.
c. Some (high) limit per year just to prevent an outright flood.

And be done with this issue so we can:

1. Allow productive individuals into the country to work and live and become part of American society.
2. Move on to other more pressing issues, like bringing an end to the current madness that is infecting Washington, D.C.


I mean, seriously, what happened to: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Agree wholeheartedly.

No. Granting any kind of amnesty to illegal immigrants would slap those in the face that legally immigrated and complied with our laws... Since when should we give amnesty to those breaking our laws?


We have sensible immigration policies that generations of immigrants have complied with and legally followed. Relaxing these immigration laws simply because politicians want to cater to the latin vote makes no sense whatsoever...


Like the "productive individuals" that killed that Texas rancher and raped that Arizona school teacher?


There is no more pressing issue for a nation than securing its borders and combatting the open borders liberal mindset...


Generations of tired, poor, and huddled masses came through Ellis Island in full compliance of US immigration law... stop making excuses for southwest illegal aliens...

When the law isn't all that sensible and reasonable and is counter-productive?



Apparently not.



Many of the "generations of immigrants" you refer to came in under previously more relaxed immigrations policies compared with what we currently have.



Yes, just like that. Don't be a fucking idiot. Making arguments like that one make you looks profoundly foolish.



Riiighhht.



See above comment about how these laws changed after the mass European immigration happened and people with darker skin started coming.

By the way, I'm not making excuses, but asking a reasonable question about this issue. I say we liberalize the immigration policy and move on.

Don't like the law? Petition for a change, run for office to change law, or get your ass out of the country. You have options. Breaking the law makes you nothing more than a criminal.


Bullshit. You're making excuses again.


Throw the race card often? You're simply an open borders advocate with no knowledge of current immigration law and no interest in following it.

Make the world a better place and there wouldn't be nearly as much a demand to enter our country. Try legalizing drugs--all of them. Take away the power of the cartels. Camp David, if you want to complain about violence crossing the border, deal with the root cause--drugs.

Prohibition created Al Capone. The War on Drugs has created the cartels.

And I'm not advocating breaking the law. I was advocating changing the law, which you quickly dismissed.



Study some history of the law in this area, then come back when you have more knowledge in the subject.



Only making an observation of what has happened with immigration law in this country. If the reality of that makes you uncomfortable, that's life. Your quarrel is with the lawmakers.



Right.



Wrong.

I have heard powerful arguments for legalizing drugs and if drug users would be more responsible perhaps the argument would make sense. However, seeing dead children from drug overdoses and reckless car accidents from users high on crack cocaine neutralize any legitimacy of drug legalization. That said, illegal immigration is not entirely based on the drug trade. Many illegal immigrants - read most - do so to 1) take American jobs, 2) avail themselves of American medical care and social benefits, and 3) escape the violence in Mexico.


Grass is also green, but it has no relationship to current discussion on illegal immigration.

Probably no more so than seeing those same things happen as a result of alcohol consumption.



I would say it isn't even substantially based on or related to the drug trade.



Yep, and we should do our best to prevent people from having jobs in America, enjoying the benefits of America's medical system and escaping violence.



That "whooosh" you just heard, was the point going right over your head.

What a hypocritical statement. But so typical for those who support this failed War on Drugs.

Do you know how many people are killed or maimed by drunk driving? Do you know how many children are born with fetal-alcohol syndrome compared to drugs? LOTS more than from drugs.

And what about all the people who abuse "legal" drugs? Far more people die from overdoses of prescription pharmaceuticals than all "illegal" drugs put together. And if a majority of people who drink are responsible, why are there so many AA meetings every day?

If one "drug" is illegal, then all of them should be illegal: Caffeine, nicotine and alcohol ... make them all illegal.

The whole argument of drug cartels causing illegal immigration is another sidestep of the issue. It is a minor, at best, factor.

Your sarcastic remark about preventing people from having jobs, etc, was also beside the point. The benefits of being an American should be reserved first for American citizens. If you are in another country and would like those benefits we have an immigration and naturalization process that you are absolutely able to apply for. I don't care if you are from Mexico, Zimbabwe, or Iran, etc... It is open to you. You are free to be my neighbor or not, and partake in any part of society you like or not. But the whole point is, there is a process in place to do this. Anything else is breaking federal law.

My whole point is predicated on making it even easier to gain entry (and even citizenship) into this country. I believe we could solve more problems than we create by reducing or removing the barriers to entry for most people. I'm not even suggesting having no process whatsoever, but rather one that is radically simplified and more widely open to more people. Clearly there are more people who wish to come into the country than are able to through the legal process. My point is to ask the basic question of "why?" Is it that they are just lazy? Do they just not want to go through the process as it is? Is it that the process and limitations are creating too high of a barrier to entry and we ought to give much more serious consideration to lowering those barriers?

Personally, I favor a much more free and open immigration policy. I believe the benefits will outweigh the negative consequences.

We can do what you suggest. However, there are two major reasons we should not do it:

a) It's harmful to the well-being of many American citizens and to society as a whole.
b) We won't be done with it.

Starting with the last point, why in the world would you think that merely declaring ANY policy limit (below the number wishing to immigrate) would prevent illegal immigration AND that we won't get another call for amnesty in 15 or 20 years? You can revise policy papers until every tree in North America is cut down and used for those policy papers, and it would not change what people ACTUALLY try to DO. Is that not obvious?

And do you understand that granting Amnesty (and full access to social services) would encourage more immigration WHEN we have yet to create a system that actually stops many illegals? (about 500,000 a year slip across the border or overstay their visa and disappear).

What I cannot figure out is why anyone thinks this issue will go away; we tried amnesty during the Reagan years and it failed - totally. We were flim-flammed by the left and chamber of commerce Republicans, and they told us Amnesty would "cure it".

Does anyone have a sense of shame when they try this ruse again?

Now regarding my first point. I won't list all the reasons your idea is bad, not for the moment. Let me suggest you first figure out what your REAL motivation is. IF you were sure that your plan harmed the well being of American citizens, OR if it harmed a segment of our population, would you be opposed to your plan? How much are you motivated by a sense of shame, guilt, or altrusim VS protecting American citizens self-interest? The well being of my fellow Americans comes first, how about you?


It was appropriate when we the first and only democratic nation, and somewhat appropriate policy when we were a frontier nation taming the wilderness; but not for a world of 7 billion people expected to rise to 10 billion by mid-century. Do we really want to have 500 or 750 million people in the US? Is that supposed to be good for us or our children?

As I said in an earlier post that you did not respond to, these sentimental notions tug on the heart. Exactly why it dulls reason, I am not sure.

And to underscore my last post, for whom and does that matter to you?

You and Obama best friends? Preventing people from having jobs? You sound so Democrat Party...


America sees the consequences of open borders; that is why Arizona acted. Other states will act in time. With the fall elections some sense will return, our borders will eventually be tightened, and we will return to a one-language nation of Americans, and free ourselves from the open-borders zealots that endanger our identity. While we Americans welcome legal immigration we do require assimilation into the American culture and the American identity.Assimilation is the key.

Yeah, that's it. Me and Barry. Bestest buddies.



How...well...how very master race-ish of you.

For whom? Do you me mean from what nations?

That may be a place to end up, but before then there needs to be a way to stop the free flow of illegal immigration first. If we cannot control immigration now, what makes you think it will be any more controlled later?

How can you possibly know that? And in the face of much of our nation's history which has shown great benefit from immigration, how can you even suggest it?


As I suggested, I set the limit high, so I think we'd significantly reduce this problem.



Actually it is.



So set the quota high enough that this won't be a major issue.



But did they implement any other changes that would have enabled more people to legally immigrate?



I'll be glad to hear all of the reasons to you think it is bad.



That's really not relevant. But, fundamentally, my motivation is to enable the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of people.



I question your premise that it would, but also I chose not to walk the situational ethics gang plank.



Freedom comes first for me. Ultimately granting greater freedom will lead to greater well-being for everyone. Americans included but not just Americans.


I disagree.


It is your opinion that it dulls reason. But that's cool.

OMG, you had to go there, didn't you...

Theodore Roosevelt wrote: "In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birth place, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here."

You know 'ol Teddy was on the Master Race bandwagon too...

I think most people have this issue upside down and backwards. There are people, maybe you are one, that think: "We need to get it under control first and then 'fix' it." But I think the premise is wrong. What if the excessive level of control we currently have is the fundamental problem.

Let's try a different example. Taxation. It is generally understood among conservatives and some Republicans that as you increase taxation, people begin working harder to evade taxes. Sometimes legally, sometimes illegally. The government's reaction to this is greater, tighter, stricter and more burdensome enforcement. However, when you lower taxes, below a certain point, people (mostly) go along and judge that evasion is no longer worth much effort. Many laws work this way. Prohibition worked just like that. Prohibition in drugs today works this way. Immigration is really no different. I say lower the barriers (maybe not to zero) and raise the quotas/limits and your "illegal" immigration problem diminishes greatly.

Now with that kind of suggestion on the table, the debate starts to boil down to what effects having more people immigrate has. Some have nearly apocalyptic and dystopian imaginations of what will happen. I'm far more optimistic. But I know I'll be told I'm wrong, doubtless with ample evidence to support that reasoning.

Sorry if you don't like my characterization. I don't mind if people wish to assimilate or don't. What I do expect them to do is to work, be productive members of society honor the basic rules of that society (don't steal, kill, assault...like that). If that's what we mean by "assimilate" then I agree.

If you are speaking of the problem of the 'illegal status' going away because most are given amnesty and everyone else is legally allowed to immigrate to the US then you are correct - people will no longer be considered illegals because legal entry is extended to just about anyone in the world.

But I think you need to work on your bromide, at least to make it internally coherent (as well as meaningful). Earlier you stated that you'd want quotas high, but not so high that it would create a "flood". So either 'a flood' would immigrate to the US if the quotas were high enough OR they would be held back by quotas to prevent them flooding (which you suggested you would support) and then many would then seek illegal means.

Moreover, illegal entry is not the whole or even core issue. The issue has been the effect of immigration, legal and illegal, on the US. Just how many would annually come would likely be in the range of many millions a year... I imagine much of the population of Bangladesh, Africa, much of India and other extremely impoverished areas would seek entry if only to avoid hunger or want (and now to obtain national health care/medicaid).

It is hard to see how the issue would not increase public concerns rangeing from crime, education, state provided medical care, pollution, urban growth, etc. ...all of which will be affected by new and greater numbers. Invariably all forms of immigration are an issue, and the legalization of current illegals, or allowing millions more, won't change that.


Yes. Amnesty of four million illegals gave them the right of 'chain migration' of other millions as all of their immediate relatives were qualified immediately, which in turn gave them the right (after gaining citizenship) to bring more. In fact, the key changes that started the legal immigration wave started in 1965 when quotas were liberalized and no longer tied to the US's prior ethnic makeup percentages.


To the contrary, your motivation (your purpose) tells us what you are trying to accomplish through you policy. If your policy will not achieve what you intend, then I may have a basis to convince you of your error (given your goals).

And my questions were not situational ethics (context), but questions of criteria. So if you "want the greatest freedom for the greatest number, even a cost to the well being of your fellow citizens" then our dispute is not over the harm of immigration to our citizens, but over the moral implications of your proposal.


This is why I asked the questions. I do believe that unrestricted immigration will result in a net gain for immigrants, and some portion of the American population. It is even possible that 'the greatest number' will benefit if you combine immigrants and those specific Americans benefiting. However, I don't believe that the majority of America, or many sub groups, benefit - in fact I believe they (we) are or would be harmed (although I believe that is somewhat dependent on who we let in).

Now, I could tell you all the reasons I believe this and will. But I would like to know if it matters? After all, I already agree that most immigrants and some Americans benefit - but that is not a sufficient criteria (to me) for supporting large immigration. I don't care if most immigrants benefit IF it costs Americans more than they are worth. That may not matter to you.

So at the risk of excess, should I assume that if they cost us more in our well being, than we get back, it is a secondary concern of yours? The greatest number for the greatest freedom, regardless of their nationality or the cost to the host?

Bullshit. Drug cartels go a long way to making Mexico incredibly violent and corrupt. That's all the more incentive to get the hell out of there.

Yeah. Has nothing to do with the lack of infrastructure down there. No clean water. Poor housing conditions. The extreme difficulty of making life better due to those conditons. The inflated cost of goods. The lack of caring by their elected officials. I could go on. It all comes down to drug cartels running the whole country and driving the people out. How many times have you been to Mexico?

Please reread what I said. Ask yourself, "did BR say that cartels are the only or even primary reason why many people want to leave Mexico?"

You deny assimilation into the American culture, acceptance and practice of our English language, and adoption of American values?

In my own defense on this, I outlined I very high level suggestion, not a detailed policy prescription. But the argumentation has been against even any of the basic ideas contained within that.



That's not what we keep hearing. What we keep hearing is the mantra that we don't mind legal immigration just illegal immigration. Now granted, many who speak on this subject in the press, politicians and man on the street people are muddled and mix and match many different concerns and wrap them all up in one.



This is a fair point, but again their ability to get here is practically limited. So we return to Mexican immigration in which it would not be. They can just walk or drive across the border. But what of it. Is the claim that the country, properly free for productive persons to come and work, cannot absorb them?



Agreed, but can we first agree that immigrants (legal or otherwise) are not disproportionately inclined toward crime or welfare leaching? And that they are not merely a cost but also bring benefits?



Fair enough. Convince me that creating greater freedom for more people does not lead to greater well-being for most people, most of the time and over the longer term. That is the basis of my contention. This freedom also includes the freedom of movement, including movement from less free countries (like Mexico) to more free countries (like the US...for now).



I quite disagree. You are wondering whether a core principle (of freedom in my case) ought to be sacrificed based on the circumstances it might create that might be found to be less than satisfactory. Again I question this premise to begin with but, ultimately, you seem to be suggesting that the granting of freedom must depend on the circumstances*.

*For the record I should be clear. There are obvious limits to freedom that should be put upon everyone such as do not steal, do not murder, etc. In short, you do not have the right of freedom to infringe upon the basic rights of life, liberty and property of others. But I don't believe those are the type of restrictions we're discussing here.



That's a fair statement.



And I disagree.



OK



Greater freedom. Yes. I do believe this will lead to generally greater well-beeing for nearly everyone involved. So I don't believe I (or the nation) would end up having to make an either/or choice here. But if that were the choice, I would side on the side of greater freedom.

Many people believe as you do, that granting that much freedom of immigration will necessarily lead to a net decrease in well-being (at least for the "host" or some large sub-group within it). I disagree and have not seen compelling arguments to convince me that I'm wrong, while I have read convincing arguments the other way. I'm willing to listen though.

From what I was reading that is where you were leaning. Primary reason. So you are saying it is only a contributing factor along the lines of no infrastructure, less freedom, and the other reasons listed above. If so, that is a safe assessment. Every bad thing in any location can be counted as a contributing factor.

What is implied but not stated by those opposed to illegal immigration is that they want legal immigration, AS it is currently processed now and without a change in quotas.[/quote]


Not exactly, I was trying to discover if your moral principles included moral considerations for others.

Best to cut to my point. I believe people have a right to form a nation of, for, and by the people. I believe they have a right to form a social compact to protect their rights, and to work for the common good of those members of the compact. I believe that it is the duty of the compact to defend its members, to protect it's members liberties, to defend the common good of the compact etc. You can pretty much sum it up in the opening phrases of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitutional preamble.

What I don't believe is that we are compelled to provide government action on behalf of the cause of liberty to those outside the compact. We are no more obligated to let in the 'unfree' masses of the Congo than we are to dispatch troops to the Congo and liberate them there. The government was formed to protect our liberties and interests, not the liberties of the world's populations.

I'll end this now, and edit in more later...

It certainly does. But riddle me this: Why should person X's well-being come at the expense of person Y's freedom?



Now that is a reasonable argument. And I agree to an extent. That said, I am speaking about a larger issue of liberty.

What is implied but not stated by those opposed to illegal immigration is that they want legal immigration, AS it is currently processed now and without a change in quotas.[/quote]


Not exactly, I was trying to discover if your moral principles included the recognition of certain rights at play for others...I think the answer is (with the exception you noted) is no.

Best to cut to my point. I believe people have a right to form a nation of, for, and by the people. I believe they have a right to form a social compact to protect their rights, and to work for the common good of those members of the compact. I believe that it is the duty of the compact to defend its members, to protect it's members liberties, to defend the common good of the compact etc. You can pretty much sum it up in the opening phrases of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitutional preamble.

What I don't believe is that we are compelled to provide government action on behalf of the cause of liberty to those outside the compact. We are no more obligated to let in the 'unfree' masses of the Congo than we are to dispatch troops to the Congo and liberate them there. The government was formed to protect our liberties and interests, not the liberties of the world's populations.

I'll end this now, and edit in more later...

Because unless person X's well being is derived from unfair takings of Person Y's freedom (e.g. slavery) he/she has no obligation to sacrifice themselves. In other words, why should person Y's desire for freedom come at the expense of (innocent) person X's well being?

Person X has a right to keep his property, to exercise his liberty, to enjoy the air, water, parks, social services, education, and transport networks that are commonly owned because they are his; he owns them either individually or collectively (via ownership forms and public ownership). That which he has produced, and obtained free of fraud or violence belongs to no others.

Do the current owners of a private or public property have a right to restrict access to what is theirs? I would think so. More broadly, do those not a part of that society (that web of ownership) have a right to demand a share? Are we obligated to accept them into our national membership to partake of those collective goods? I think not.

But what if there were no state, no collective ownership - what if we were merely independent contractors...could each then decide to do business with who they please? Probably. If their were no commons, then I could see the purest libertarian POV.


Whether we employ our collective resources here or elsewhere on behalf of those that are unfree may be a difference in degree, but it is not a difference in kind. If we are obligated to help make the unfree, 'free', then we are obligated to do so regardless of context (i.e. free of situational ethics?).

I think the core base of disagreements on immigration (if you are of a libertarian bent) is the notion of the nation-state as a social compact - a collective of people whose obligations are first to themselves. That annoys some people. It (to them) seems unfair.

The other extreme see states and borders as evil. There is no national self-interest, only the interests of the whole world.

<sigh>



I agree with this. Mostly. The collective part if fraught with all sorts of issues that you gloss over here.



Here again you are conflating private property with collective "ownership." The collective part is fraught with issues that I simply don't have the time to go into right now.



Yes.



I believe you have changed what I was saying, let alone intending by suggesting I have argued here that we are obligated to help make the unfree, 'free'.

Max, in all honesty I've run out of gas on this discussion. I do applaud you for your civil and reasoned debate. Though I believe we still disagree on many point (and probably agree on a few), I have to say it has been refreshing to have a civil and rational discussion.

You've done something I've actually never seen before...you've quoted yourself, but out of context! The context of your statement wasn't in regard to generally working with other countries on international, economic, or military issues. It was in the context of a debate on immigration.

Let's look at it again:

Here's the first problem. Have we ever expressed this attitude? I don't think we have. The US is involved heavily in international relations in every respect. Now, because we are a legitimate economic and military superpower, we do exercise leadership in those areas....as we should.


Here is the second problem with your statement, when in the context of the discussion at hand. When applied to the thread, you're arguing that the US should consider the opinion of other nations when determining our own immigration policy. Do I have that right? If so, I disagree strongly. We should not consider, say, the Mexican government's opinion on immigration into the United States. We set our immigration policy, just like every other nation on earth does. No one else. We're not talking about international monetary system reform, or sanctions against a particular country over something like nuclear proliferation.

M may have run out of gas prematurely, but I did promise to explain how immigration harms our well-being. So to begin...

Immigration, legal and illegal, as presently constituted is harmful to our national well-being.

In summary:
- Immigration contributes little to our overall economy.
- Immigration lowers wages, especially in lower skilled occupations
- Immigrants are major contributers to crime, welfare caseloads, medicaid, and pollution/congestion.
- Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, do not pay for their social costs.
- Immigration contributes to class, ethinic, and race conflict as well as fights over 'redistributed' resources (e.g. affirmative action, health care for the poor, etc.).

Let's take the first item:

Probably the most frequently cited study by the immigration supporters is the National Academy of Sciences study done in 1997, which was an update of a 1995 study. It estimated than immigration contributes about 10 billion a year - updates by supporters (based on a larger economy and inflation) suggest immigrants now contributed about 30 billion a year in 2007.

However, as Borjas (who helped oversee the study) has pointed out, that is an insignificant contribution, and a misleading one at that. Why?

a) Their "contribution" is 30 billion over 13.22 trillion (GDP) a year - that is a very tiny 0.22% percent! An extra 1/5th of a cent for every 100 dollars of GDP.
b) The "contribution" leaves out all social costs (health, education, welfare, housing, crime, environment, etc.).
c) The implied wage loss of native born Americans is more than $350 billion. Adding the two numbers (30 plus 350) gives you about $400 billion a year in employer gains.
d) Over time the tiny gain from an immigration dissapates.
The bottom line is that in order for the economy to gain from immigration, the wage losses from American workers must be substantial.

Which is why the WSJ types want never ending cheap labor... quite understandable.

http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas...n_no_gain.html

Well, based on the history of prohibition and the escalating violence and corruption as a result, would not ending this pointless war be a positive step toward making Mexico a better place?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100706...oliticsarizona

Federal Government Sues to block Arizona law. Because why though?


I guess the policy is to let anyone in regardless of status and not to enforce any boundaries at all...

I think it is fairly obvious. Obama and the democrats constituency is the dependency class. The more that are dependent, the greater the number of votes. Now that a large part of the poor are immigrants, its important to keep that class pumped up in size. Hence, open borders.

Let's face it, amnesty is a potential ten million votes. And like the proverbial story that "Lenin said the capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them with", looks to be true.