Arizona's Illegal Immigration Law

[Thumpalumpacus]

None of the reasons you've advanced really justify the overstatements you've made.  Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is.

[TheJackel]

None of the reasons you've advanced really justify the overstatements you've made.  Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is.

 In 200 years from now I doubt my overstatements as you suggest would actually pan out to be overstatements.(unless you want to hold me to the parking lot statement)..Provided of course things go as they are going now. The other thing is, if MA for example is in such dept, where do we get the funds to protect the environment if such funds are being drained by illegal aliens? That's billions of dollars a year from taxpayers nation wide to use to protect their natural reserves. I'm sorry, but immigration has an impact on everything, and if you think that is an overstatement then so be it..:pop:

However, I think we have come to the end where we simply agree to disagree...

[Thumpalumpacus]

None of the reasons you've advanced really justify the overstatements you've made.  Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is.

 In 200 years from now I doubt my overstatements as you suggest would actually pan out to be overstatements.(unless you want to hold me to the parking lot statement)..Provided of course things go as they are going now. The other thing is, if MA for example is in such dept where do we get the funds to protect the environment if such funds are being drained by illegal aliens? That's billions of dollars a year from taxpayers nation wide to use to protect their natural reserves. I'm sorry, but immigration has an impact on everything, and if you think that is an overstatement then so be it..:pop:

However, I think we have come to the end where we simply agree to disagree...

Well, you've yet to show that they're draining our finances.  The working illegals pay income taxes that fund services that they cannot access, Social Security taxes they cannot redeem by retiring, and unemployment insurance premiums that they cannot collect should they become unemployed.  They do draw benefits -- public education and emergency rooms services, in part -- but to complain of their false IDs by which they pay these taxes, while at the same time not extending credit for these contributions, seems biased to me.

[TheJackel]

None of the reasons you've advanced really justify the overstatements you've made.  Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is.

 In 200 years from now I doubt my overstatements as you suggest would actually pan out to be overstatements.(unless you want to hold me to the parking lot statement)..Provided of course things go as they are going now. The other thing is, if MA for example is in such dept where do we get the funds to protect the environment if such funds are being drained by illegal aliens? That's billions of dollars a year from taxpayers nation wide to use to protect their natural reserves. I'm sorry, but immigration has an impact on everything, and if you think that is an overstatement then so be it..:pop:

However, I think we have come to the end where we simply agree to disagree...

Well, you've yet to show that they're draining our finances.  The working illegals pay income taxes that fund services that they cannot access, Social Security taxes they cannot redeem by retiring, and unemployment insurance premiums that they cannot collect should they become unemployed.  They do draw benefits -- public education and emergency rooms services, in part -- but to complain of their false IDs by which they pay these taxes, while at the same time not extending credit for these contributions, seems biased to me.

Now I'm not saying they don't contribute, and what they contribute vs drain on the system is likely not nearly equal. How much in taxes a year do you think and individual pays vs drains when they (not all) are  making below poverty income? . They aren't paying property taxes so they definitely aren't paying for schools here that their children attend, or the medical care that goes unpaid back to the hospitals. Here in MA more motorists equal more costs due to congestion. If I get into a car accident with an illegal, he or she doesn't pay for anything..It's not just overall state costs, it comes down to individual costs too, like wages, insurance, liability,  accident coverage, property values, possible ID theft, bad credit and all sorts of possible things.. The big thing we have to remove is any kind of drain they could have, and if that means legalizing those who have lived here a while and deporting those who haven't, or deporting those who have criminal records so be it.. It's not bias to demand the system be fixed what-so-ever. Immigration just needs to be controlled and fixed regardless of any of the reasons discussed here, and with a solution to those that have been here a while.. Close the borders and start fixing things, and that isn't much to ask for  :/

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now I'm not saying they don't contribute, and what they contribute vs drain on the system is likely not nearly equal.

Data, please.

How much in taxes a year do you think and individual pays vs drains when they (not all) are  making below poverty income? .

I'm not sure.  That doesn't justify making unsupported assumptions.

They aren't paying property taxes so they definitely aren't paying for schools here that their children attend, or the medical care that goes unpaid back to the hospitals.

False.  They pay property taxes in their rent.  Do you honestly think landlords don't factor that into the cost of business?

Here in MA more motorists equal more costs due to congestion. If I get into a car accident with an illegal, he or she doesn't pay for anything.

There in Massachusetts you also have a fair number of toll roads.  If you get in an accident with an uninsured illegal, you can still sue them, unless they go home.

It's not just overall state costs, it comes down to individual costs too, like wages, insurance, liability,  accident coverage, property values, possible ID theft, bad credit and all sorts of possible things.

Again, crying about ID theft, and then claiming they don't pay taxes, is evidence that you haven't thought this through.  They steal IDs in order to get legal jobs; in so doing, they pay taxes.  Did you not read my above post?

The big thing we have to remove is any kind of drain they could have, and if that means legalizing those who have lived here a while and deporting those who haven't, or deporting those who have criminal records so be it.. It's not bias to demand the system be fixed what-so-ever. Immigration just needs to be controlled and fixed regardless of any of the reasons discussed here, and with a solution to those that have been here a while.. Close the borders and start fixing things, and that isn't much to ask for  :/

Nor am I, and I'm unsure what made you think I might be.

[Davin]

Uhh no, I compared England mostly to Minnesota, and that I wouldn't care to apply England's population density as an example to the replicated or allowed to happen here in the United States as a whole. England is a terrible example, and with population growth comes expansion, bad decisions ectra..

I was talking about my comparison.

Are you trying to argue populations have nothing to do with bad choices?

I clearly stated my position, can you even read?

My point is that: increased population =/= environmental disaster.

The reality is that increased population does lead to environmental impacts, and impacts that can lead to environmental disaster..

No it doesn't. That is a logically equivalent response to your response.

There is a difference between population density in an area and overall population.

You're the one who seems to have difficulty discerning between the concepts that I'm talking about.

England does not have a higher population than the United states, Nor does it have 309 million people that can freely move about it.

No shit...

Thus I compared England to the State of Minnesota, or I could have done it with the State of Wisconsin.

Again, I was talking about my comparison. So you get to compare between populations of certain things, you get to compare land masses and you get to compare... well pretty much anything, but you won't talk about my comparisons? That is disingenuous.

I gave you more than one reason, and all are valid.. I didn't include Canada in the North American continent either.. and I am not unscrupulously manipulating the numbers. Fact remains that 55 ppl per square mi live in North America. Also, part about protected refuge do you not comprehend? And lets revisit this shall we, I compared Asia both to the lower 48 and North America to which includes Canada. Don't accuse without reading..

My point is that all the reasons you gave to remove a significant portion of the U.S. should have been used to remove all land from both sides of the comparison/contrast, but you didn't, only for Alaska. This is very dishonest.

How did you manage to derive that conclusion from the above? So your saying the same problems would exist if there were 5 people vs 5 million or vs 50 million? Riiight, you point was just nullified.

Because you have shown that poor environmental choices don't need a higher population, which was my point that you're strengthening by providing examples of places with lower people per square mile making poorer environmental decisions than England is right now.

Yeah, we don't want to be like Africa either, and they have less people per square mile. The point is: population growth =/= giving up wildlife preserves.

False, Africa's population is 1,000,010,000 with 11668598 sq mi = roughly 85 ppl per sq mi.

You say "false" and then show that my statement is true?

And that gives [the U.S.] 98.4 ppl per sq mi.

What is going on here? Do you think you could keep your make believe straight for at least one post? What is this saying what I said was false then showing that it's true?

And most of Africa's rain forests have been depleted considerably..

Yeah, Africa has been pretty barren for a really long time, like since before the population of the world was a billion.

0.6% shows apparently England Can't.

I think you mean 8.06% actually (Peak District (1951): 555, Lake District (1951): 885, Dartmoor (1951): 369, North York Moors (1952): 554, Yorkshire Dales (1954): 683, Exmoor (1954): 268, Northumberland (1956): 405, The Broads (1988): 117, New Forest (2005): 220 = 4056. 4056 / 50346 = 0.080563). You know, at least according to them http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk, and they're adding another this year with 634 more square miles (that's another 1.36%). While I can understand that 8% isn't the best option, the 0.6% that you've been referring to is completely misleading, inaccurate and so wrong it's like you didn't even check your sources. England, having more than ten times the population density as the U.S., is still putting aside land for national park preserves. My point: we can keep and/or expand national parks while still increasing our population 10 times what it is now (that's 3.09 billion, close to half the current world's population).

Capitalism, the US economy, or urban growth... Get yourself an Atlas and then come back when you figure out where I can logically make that argument..

Why do I have to figure out where you can make a logical argument?

The are hardly extreme statements.

Then you must accept both that you're suggesting mass murder to fix our population and I'm suggesting turning the U.S. into a parking lot. The problem is that neither of us even hinted at anything close to those extreme statements, so why even bring parking lot B.S. up?

Are we done talking about immigration and are now talking about limiting population growth?

To the best we can responsibly yes, and immigration is one of those areas we can have control over.. Hence, I reject an open door policy.

Based on your dishonest, incomplete and vacuous evidence.

[TheJackel]

Data, please.

I don't have access to the data but hospitals and school boards have been complaining about of for a very long time.. Pregnant illegal having a baby is going to cost the system far beyond what she puts in, and that is especially true should the children have special needs.. If our school boards and Hospitals are waving the red flags and complaining about it, there is obviously a problem. MA is already having to build a new School this year when they just built one a year ago.

I'm not sure.  That doesn't justify making unsupported assumptions.

Neither do I.. But lets put it this way, The amount I pay in taxes a year could never cover my medical expenses, or educational costs, especially if I had children and I don't make below poverty vs border line poverty giving the high cost of living here in Boston. If I were an illegal, there is no way what I put in could ever cover what I would take from the system. And I were getting paid under the table, or get hit by a car, It definitely would not cover it.  Mind you, this is based off my own expenses.  

False.  They pay property taxes in their rent.  Do you honestly think landlords don't factor that into the cost of business?

This can be both true and false. Depends if they are using local shelters and halfway houses, or all huddling as groups into a single apartment ect.. So granted, so are paying property taxes..

There in Massachusetts you also have a fair number of toll roads.  If you get in an accident with an uninsured illegal, you can still sue them, unless they go home.

LOL, good luck with that, yes you can try and sue them, but how are you going to get money from an ID that doesn't exist, or is stolen? You can't garnish wages if they just toss out the ID and buy a new one and start over with another SSN. Hence, you're SOL.  

Again, crying about ID theft, and then claiming they don't pay taxes, is evidence that you haven't thought this through.  They steal IDs in order to get legal jobs; in so doing, they pay taxes.  Did you not read my above post?

ID theft alone is reason enough to deport or legislate the laws against illegal aliens. Taxes I can stand corrected on, but is irrelevant and is not a valid reason they ought to be here. And they are not legal jobs when they get them by committing employment fraud, and use Fake, stolen, or purchased IDS and SSN's.. If I did that, I would be put in prison regardless if I payed taxes.. I challenge anyone here to start using a Fake, Stolen, or purchased ID and SN to see how far you get with that..

I have no argument with sealing the borders.  My argument is with demonizing people, and making unsupported claims.

Nor am I, and I'm unsure what made you think I might be.

Your not the one that came up with that Idea I believe it was Davin, who of course is continuing the rant below on the issue without understanding that America is not England, and nor should England be an example of what America should have to be like.. I don't think Davin is getting the overall point that we shouldn't have to live like sardines in our own country just so illegals can come plant their seeds here. Davin actually tries to defend a very poor example to the point of claiming that they could happily live with 3 billion people in a country about the size of Wisconsin LOL.. No real American wants to live in a sardine can.

[Davin]

I believe it was Davin, who of course is continuing the rant below on the issue without understanding that America is not England, and nor should England be an example of what America should have to be like.. I don't think Davin is getting the overall point that we shouldn't have to live like sardines in our own country just so illegals can come plant their seeds here.

No, if you actually read what I typed then you'd have my position correct.

Davin actually tries to defend a very poor example to the point of claiming that they could happily live with 3 billion people in a country about the size of Wisconsin LOL..

I never said this or anything close to this. Seriously though: how well can you read? I only ask this because instead of talking about what I type you very often talk about something else while seemingly responding to what I said. This "claiming that they could happily live with 3 billion people in a country about the size of Wisconsin LOL." Is a good example of you responding to something I have never said. Because if you can read and understand just fine, then the problem is somewhere out of my control.

No real American wants to live in a sardine can.

No real American wants to take away freedom.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jack, wisdom advises that in the absence of data one should reel in broad claims, especially when they are apparent appeals to emotion.

[TheJackel]

No, if you actually read what I typed then you'd have my position correct.

Lets back track shall we.

1)

I don't think the borders need to be closed, other than people avoiding responsibility for the crimes they've committed, I say let them in if they want. Give them better access to work visas, tax them, get them documented and make it easier to understand the process and/or provide someone that can explain the process. I think those things will solve a lot of the illegal part of the problem as well as some of the costs you talk about for them living in the country undocumented.

Now, I agree to much of the second half of this argument, but I reject the first sentence which seems like an open door policy seemingly solidified in the next argument.

2)

Here's a plan: Not only make the naturalization/work visa process easier, faster and cheaper, but also encourage people from worst countries to immigrate here. When the governments of those countries see their people leaving en mass, they will be forced to do something about their own country to make it appealing for the people that are holding the country up instead of making the country appealing to those that are exploiting the people.

This would be noble, but self destructive.. We don't need millions of people coming here.. I don't have a problem with making things easier, but I firmly don't believe we should just accept every applicant, or open the flood gates as you will. And this is where the environment debate started to kick in.

3)
I responded with:

Though I understand your Position here, I don't agree to a doors wide open policy.Also, I think you are not really informed on what kind of environmental effect that would have here because they do end up owning property, and homes. California has been constantly building new schools for example..It does lead to unnecessary urban development and the disappearance of our natural habitats.

4) Davin Wrote:

As far as overpopulation and environmental effects are concerned we can compare the population of the U.S. per square mile to the population per square mile of other countries that are successful in controlling pollution, places to live and many other things.

The U.S. has an estimated population of 309 million people with 3.79 million square miles of land, England has an estimated 51.446 million people on 50,436 square miles of land. U.S. pop per sq mile about: 81.53, England pop per sq mile about: 1020.03. We have a lot of filling up to do before we can even complain about overpopulation and the environmental affects associated with increased population. Maybe you're not very informed

Right here was a completely dishonest argument giving that England's Loss of habitat and reserves is in the broad sense ridiculous.. 8% in itself shows the failure of your argument.. When England manages to get their Natural reserves back over 60%, and completely repair their biodiversity you let me know..Until then your example is a prime example of over population and it's impacts on the environment.  To me your England example is like the Hawaii example, screwed up to the point where they are forced fix it or lose it all. So my point always has been that America shouldn't have to become like England in order to keep it's natural reserves just so you can have that door wide open to encourage every living being we could possible get to come here from other countries.. If you don't understand my position against your argument by now, It's not I that has failed to read.

Yes, England's blunders may teach us ways to better conserve space, but it's not going to conserve on consumption and waste. It's not going to change the fact that England is a bad example of over population and environment.. They are a good example of lessons to be learned in what not to do, and what to do if you get into their position.. Well, America already comprehends this, and this is why Alaska, Yellow Stone, Red wood forests in CA, Hawaii ect are all protected.. America's biggest problem is Farming to feed the rest of the world who either can't feed themselves from their own natural resources , or have over populated to where their natural resources can't provide them to sustain them.. That cuts into our own habitat loss, and other nations habitat loss that provide such resource exports. Corn being the United States largest export on average to which consumes massive amounts of natural habitat.

Concerning England's natural Reserves, here is where I got my information from:
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwor ... fault.aspx

There are currently 224 NNRs in England (and one Marine Nature Reserve, Lundy) with a total area of over 94,400 hectares, which is approximately 0.6% of the country’s land surface. The largest is The Wash NNR, covering almost 8,800 hectares, whilst Horn Park Quarry in Dorset, at 0.32 hectares, is the smallest.

So is it correct that the total number of hectares is 94,000 (365 sq mi) or did I miss read that for just the Marine Nature Reserve? .. I'm only curious to this point of the total current number giving I would have expected Natural England to have up to date figures.. Wiki didn't even have the correct info: "879 square kilometres" (339 sq mi's).. My argument wasn't miss leading or dishonest vs out of date.. Cheers on the update to 8%.. Better, but far from even remotely acceptable.. The only thing positive I get out of your caparison is what high density population end up having to do to cope with their over population problems, and bad decisions that might be of useful insight. My argument stated that I really don't care to see America end up like England, especially considering here in America, higher population never translates to high rise apartments vs urban sprawl.. America has been up for sale for ages, and it's purchasable property to pretty much anyone foreign or domestic.

So I rejected your argument from which this all stems from Davin.. We don't need or want everyone coming here. We also don't need or want a 1000 ppl per mi populous.. Open door policy is a bad idea.. End of story.

I never said this or anything close to this. Seriously though: how well can you read? I only ask this because instead of talking about what I type you very often talk about something else while seemingly responding to what I said. This "claiming that they could happily live with 3 billion people in a country about the size of Wisconsin LOL." Is a good example of you responding to something I have never said. Because if you can read and understand just fine, then the problem is somewhere out of my control.

Oh? You mean this didn't magically come out of your typing fingers?

we can keep and/or expand national parks while still increasing our population 10 times what it is now (that's 3.09 billion, close to half the current world's population).

I am seemingly responding to you in equivalent argument vs quoting you Davin.. Apparently I can read. Nor was that talking about something else vs putting into context in how ridiculous it would be to have 3 billion people in the land mass not bigger than Wisconsin or Minnesota. That's just insane.

No real American wants to take away freedom.

There is no such thing as true Freedom Davin, that's why you have laws to follow that take freedoms to bad things away.. Freedom is nothing more than a concept that doesn't really entirely exist out side of complete anarchy with the freedom to do whatever you wanted without consequence. Hence, individual freedoms are given up to support justice, and laws that govern and protect you. Granted there are some ridiculous laws that are indeed unjust. however, federal laws are hardly unjust, nor is the deportation of those who break them, should deportation be the action taken.. If I broke any of those laws, you wouldn't see anyone crying about it, calling it racism, or call out the demonizing of my character would you? If I were to commit employment fraud, I would go straight to jail or pay a hefty fine.  Seriously, if they can't respect this country enough to obey the laws to begin with, we don't want them here.. And no country would want me in their country either if I had crossed their boarders while breaking their laws doing so.  If they can't get here legally, too bad, I wish them best of luck and good fortunes in their own countries.

So I would even call my ideas on a solution above a slap on the wrist compared to what I would have to deal with if I had broken the same laws..

[TheJackel]

double post edit

[Thumpalumpacus]

When England manages to get their Natural reserves back over 60%, and completely repair their biodiversity you let me know.

Is this not Moving the Goalposts?  After all, limiting immigration here in America won't "completely repair our biodiversity".  Nor will limiting immigration (either legal or illegal) have any effect on protected acreage.

[philosoraptor]

I saw this article on Yahoo this morning, and thought it was at least pertinent to this discussion.  Maybe some people here would like to take the farm workers up on their offer?: Immigrant farm workers issue challenge

[Thumpalumpacus]

Anyone who says immigrants don't work their asses off needs to come here to SoCal.  As a retail manager, I'd rather hire an immigrant (documented, of course) than the kids we're spitting out of high school; they have one helluva work ethic, rarely ask for time off, and most important, they understand that the only entitlement that matters is the one they earn.

[TheJackel]

I saw this article on Yahoo this morning, and thought it was at least pertinent to this discussion.  Maybe some people here would like to take the farm workers up on their offer?: Immigrant farm workers issue challenge

Interesting, but a bit out foresight on that this magically neglects construction, factory, warehouse, and service industry jobs.. Like I said before, if America needs jobs to be filled, it can be done through legal work visa's and work programs like you can find in many places around the world.. This does not excuse illegal immigration.. Worse case, America downsizes it's farms, restores habitat, ceases farm exports, feeds it's own markets..