Arizona's Illegal Immigration Law

[McQ]

It seems like an emotional plea to me.  If the claims made are factual, produce the evidence.  Also, claiming that people asking for evidence are just 'quibbling about details' is a suspiciously familiar claim.  

I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I go back and forth on the immigration issue, I don't have a passionate position from which I argue - I just want to know exactly how much damage illegals actually do.  When I look for this information, I can't find it.  What I can find is a lot of these emotionally driven statements about illegal immigrants, but where are the facts?  Not the anecdotal 'they took our jobs!' mentality, the data?  Does it not exist?  Is it too difficult to collect reliable data because of the nature of the subject?

It seems like a lot of people here are thinking in extremes.  I'm sure some nefarious illegals are laughing insidiously as they roll around in beds of American money and I'm sure some illegals are fleeing horrible countries where they're forced to sell their own skin for air, but I don't think the entire issue should be considered with only extremes in mind.  If we are going to decide what to do based on extremes, though, I think it's worth letting the bad illegals take advantage if it means helping out fellow human beings who are in seriously bad situations.  That's just my emotional position.  

[TheJackel]

This will not be a popular posting for either one of us, but I agree with most of what you've written here. People will discount it as rhetoric because no exact figures were given, and some generalizations were used, but I'd caution those who discount it out of hand for those bits. The overall point is well made, even if many will quibble with details.

Just chiming in to say I think it's broadly valid.

Without actual data to evaluate, how can we possibly know that an argument is valid? Evidence isn't "those bits", it is part and parcel to the conclusion. Without evidence all that's left is rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims.

It's not hard to validate that the fact they cost the taxpayer money, or that they do occupy millions of Jobs.. Illegals don't have medical insurance when they cross the boarder, and anyone that gets hurt, ill, is pregnant, ectra costs us money.. The two links above are mere excuses to make illegal legal, and magically ok to bill me some illegal aliens medical, educational, low income housing, and food costs.. And yes illegals do vote, I know of several who do, and these people I have worked with and have had these discussions with.http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?p ... entersb9dc

.  With nearly 19 million foreign-born residents who are not U.S. citizens in the country in the 2000 Census and an estimated 9-11 million illegal residents (many of them not also counted in the Census), the potential is enormous for non-citizens to affect the outcome of elections.

And yes the above is outdated but I chose it for example purposes only, and that problem is likely far worse now than it was 10 years ago.

It doesn't take a rocket scientists to know what's going on in your own backyard. And this is entirely regardless of figures because it doesn't take figures to figure out that it's a problem.  If it were just 1 billion dollars that it costs us taxpayers, that 1 billion dollars could send several hundred American homeless children to college with room and board, plus a means to support themselves until they get a JOB. Or it could be used to stop them from crossing the border or help stop the illegal Drug runners. And how many illegal aliens are we paying for that are in the American Prison system? How much did that cost us in legal fees, medical, education, food costs, and a cell to live in? How many billions do we spend a year trying to keep them out, and to deport them over and over again? So you are right, we need some real figures on costs because it seems that nobody has anything reliable to reflect the total cost of every dollar we spend on the illegal immigration problem.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/ ... 4208.shtml
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/februar ... port.shtml

in 2005, roughly 208,000 illegals in Us prison for various crimes.  And then we can go here for more fun in considering how many Americans are killed by illegals every year, or even annually.. We lose less fewer troops each year in Afghanistan than we do citizens here in the US by foreign illegal aliens.

However, I understand that most Mexican and other foreign people like our own are nice people, and that some just want a better life, but this is no excuse to jump the fence and assume Americans will pay for your medical if you fall on your face trying to get over the fence.. My Aunt Peggie is a Nurse in an Arizona Hospital in Sun City, and she will tell you how out of control this problem really is.. If the general public notices these problems nation wide, the problem is a lot bigger than they are aware of. And I find it interesting that the states that have major problems with illegals are all deep in the red.

Now let's reflect back on stolen SSN's:
"The Federal Trade Commission, which estimates that 10 million Americans have their identities stolen each year"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/world ... 88618.html
http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/C2007061 ... index.html (2007 problem gets worse)

[Sophus]

in 2005, roughly 208,000 illegals in Us prison for various crimes.  And then we can go here for more fun in considering how many Americans are killed by illegals every year, or even annually.. We lose less fewer troops each year in Afghanistan than we do citizens here in the US by foreign illegal aliens.

I'm willing to bet we lose even more citizens due to legal/native citizens.  

[TheJackel]

in 2005, roughly 208,000 illegals in Us prison for various crimes.  And then we can go here for more fun in considering how many Americans are killed by illegals every year, or even annually.. We lose less fewer troops each year in Afghanistan than we do citizens here in the US by foreign illegal aliens.

I'm willing to bet we lose even more citizens due to legal/native citizens.  

That would be an irrelevant argument, and has no barring on the illegal problem.. You can't use legal citizen crime to give magical clearance to to illegal alien crime.. That is a disingenuous argument. So all you have done there was post a circular argument to deflect from the problem being discussed. That was or seemed like a pretty bad attempt to try and win brownie points for illegal immigration.. So I guess your argument make it ok to sacrifice American lives in support for illegal immigration? Perhaps illegals can legislate it into law and call it the magical justification act.. No sir, I don't play circular games in order to play ignore the problem game.

I personally feel that Arizona still isn't doing enough to stop illegal immigration..

[JillSwift]

Re-read what I wrote. I said that I'd caution those who discount it out of hand, and that the overall point was well made. WOuld I like to have actual, exact data? Sure. But no one has actual, EXACT data on any aspect of this yet, as it is still an unfolding social phenomenon, and not a set series of physical experiments or data sets.

Piffle. No point can be well made without evidence.

[Sophus]

I'm willing to bet we lose even more citizens due to legal/native citizens.  

That would be an irrelevant argument, and has no barring on the illegal problem.. You can't use legal citizen crime to give magical clearance to to illegal alien crime.. That is a disingenuous argument. So all you have done there was post a circular argument to deflect from the problem being discussed. That was or seemed like a pretty bad attempt to try and win brownie points for illegal immigration.. So I guess your argument make it ok to sacrifice American lives in support for illegal immigration? Perhaps illegals can legislate it into law and call it the magical justification act.. No sir, I don't play circular games in order to play ignore the problem game.

I personally feel that Arizona still isn't doing enough to stop illegal immigration..

There's nothing disingenuous about it. What I meant by it was that simply because some illegal aliens commit crimes it doesn't seem reasonable to boot them all out for that sole reason. Especially when so many are helping the economy and otherwise abiding by the law. Of course there are your criminals and drugs dealers as well. But I think that can be dealt with in a different manner. If we deport all of them we're really just hurting ourselves. One more reason I don't see this as an "Us and Them" situation.

[JillSwift]

@TheJackal
Without primary sources, little of what was in those articles can be counted as evidence.

It is hard to validate the claims of costs, since cost is actually how much is taken out of a system versus what is put in to that system. We know that illegal immigrants do take out of the system, and we know they put back in. What we can't be sure of is to what ratio.

There does not appear to be any information on how many of the identity thefts were perpetuated by illegal immigrants.

But, most importantly, we don't have an overall picture that really gives us the ability to claim that illegal immigrants are a problem in the first place. If we flipped the switch on them to make them all legal, would there still be reason to keep them off US soil? I don't know.

I can make a good argument, however, based on that lack of hard data: We need to control our systems so that we can better evaluate where our public money is going and what it's doing.

For instance, that even one illegal immigrant can cast a vote means that we need a voting system that better prevents outside influence. Similar hole-patching needs to go into disbursement of public insurance. Inter-system aggregate data needs to be shared and assessed relationally to detect surges and changes in direction of monetary flow.

This would go far further in solving any problems - not in the least by actually making us aware of where any real problems lie - than any law that opens US citizens up to bing suspected on basis of skin color, or any law that means building a barricade that will simply be circumvented, or a law that tries to get around the 5th amendment.

It also frees us from having to make unsupported claims to try and solve a problem we're not sure exists.

[thelittlefinch]

@TheJackal

It is hard to validate the claims of costs, since cost is actually how much is taken out of a system versus what is put in to that system. We know that illegal immigrants do take out of the system, and we know they put back in. What we can't be sure of is to what ratio.

If it's indeed true that legal tax-paying immigrants and American citizens can/do absorb the cost of resources illegal immigrants use, and if it's indeed true that legal tax-paying immigrants and American citizens can and do so without significant impact on the resources that have been allocated for them, it does not take away from the fact that, without illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and American citizens may be left with a surplus of resources. In my volunteer experience at the charter school in my college town (which has a large illegal immigrant population), there are "legal" kids who have to pay partial tuition that their parents can barely afford because most, if not all, financial funding has gone to kids without legal status.

My mother is also a nurse at the county tuberculosis clinic and has told me that most of her patients are illegal immigrants without any health insurance. The county ends up paying upwards of half a million dollars each to cure them because they can't be deported if they're sick, and the county can't let someone with a contagious airborne disease to just wander around in public untreated.

[McQ]

Re-read what I wrote. I said that I'd caution those who discount it out of hand, and that the overall point was well made. WOuld I like to have actual, exact data? Sure. But no one has actual, EXACT data on any aspect of this yet, as it is still an unfolding social phenomenon, and not a set series of physical experiments or data sets.

Piffle. No point can be well made without evidence.

Nice. Real nice. Not true either. Getting a bit testy on this? Remember your response here, when, in the future, someone rejects something you say out of hand without even thinking about it. A lot of this is opinion based on personal observation. Lots of things that are not hard science can be argued this way. I reject your rejection as irrelevant.

[JillSwift]

Nice. Real nice. Not true either. Getting a bit testy on this? Remember your response here, when, in the future, someone rejects something you say out of hand without even thinking about it.

Why are you suggesting I'm getting emotional about this? Isn't suggesting I'm merely being testy just an ad hominem anyway? I have thought about it, that's why I'm rejecting the argument. It's good skepticism to reject rhetoric and seek evidence.

A lot of this is opinion based on personal observation. Lots of things that are not hard science can be argued this way. I reject your rejection as irrelevant.

Personal observation is not evidence, it's merely the source of conjecture.

Given the state of politics, I'd have expected a greater wish for evidenced decision making over collections of anecdotes and rhetoric. Ideological and emotional decisions aren't working out terribly well for us.

[Davin]

Re-read what I wrote. I said that I'd caution those who discount it out of hand, and that the overall point was well made. WOuld I like to have actual, exact data? Sure. But no one has actual, EXACT data on any aspect of this yet, as it is still an unfolding social phenomenon, and not a set series of physical experiments or data sets.

Piffle. No point can be well made without evidence.

Nice. Real nice. Not true either. Getting a bit testy on this? Remember your response here, when, in the future, someone rejects something you say out of hand without even thinking about it. A lot of this is opinion based on personal observation. Lots of things that are not hard science can be argued this way. I reject your rejection as irrelevant.

While I agree on both sides that not everything requires hard evidence, accepting something as true does. I mean if someone wants to accept something as true just because they think that's the way it works that's fine with me. But, if some one is going to go around telling people things are true and when asked for evidence they have none, then I have a problem.

You can go around making statements that begin with "I think..." but you don't go around with statements like "It's not hard to validate that the fact they cost the taxpayer money, or that they do occupy millions of Jobs.. Illegals don't have medical insurance when they cross the boarder, and anyone that gets hurt, ill, is pregnant, ectra costs us money.. The two links above are mere excuses to make illegal legal, and magically ok to bill me some illegal aliens medical, educational, low income housing, and food costs." without backing it up with data. No excuses. Either back up these statements or pack up. You don't say "it's not hard" to validate something then not provide the validation, that's ridiculous. So yeah, I disagree with you McQ, in this instance, with these statements: evidence is required.

@TheJackal: you don't bring up something like "in 2005, roughly 208,000 illegals in Us prison for various crimes. And then we can go here for more fun in considering how many Americans are killed by illegals every year, or even annually." then say something like "That would be an irrelevant argument, and has no barring on the illegal problem.. You can't use legal citizen crime to give magical clearance to to illegal alien crime.." when someone mentions "I'm willing to bet we lose even more citizens due to legal/native citizens. " Everyone can bring up an issue to debate a point you brought up or you can't either. It's perfectly valid to bring up legal/native citizens to compare and contrast how much harm the illegal immigrants are actually doing. It's a very valid point if 1 out of 1,000,000 illegal immigrants are committing violent crimes while 1 out of 10,000 legal/native citizens are committing crimes or even if they're equal or more illegal immigrants per capita are committing crimes. So explore the issue don't just block it out without a discussion.

I've seen this so many times with Christian Vs. Atheist violent criminals, where the religious nutters claim they can give examples of atheist crimes but the atheist can't bring up Christian crimes because of this or that. It's bullshit. No excuses, it's just trying to take away the evidence from the other side without even discussing it because one side is afraid the evidence will show that they're wrong.

[McQ]

Nice. Real nice. Not true either. Getting a bit testy on this? Remember your response here, when, in the future, someone rejects something you say out of hand without even thinking about it.

Why are you suggesting I'm getting emotional about this? Isn't suggesting I'm merely being testy just an ad hominem anyway? I have thought about it, that's why I'm rejecting the argument. It's good skepticism to reject rhetoric and seek evidence.

A lot of this is opinion based on personal observation. Lots of things that are not hard science can be argued this way. I reject your rejection as irrelevant.

Personal observation is not evidence, it's merely the source of conjecture.

Given the state of politics, I'd have expected a greater wish for evidenced decision making over collections of anecdotes and rhetoric. Ideological and emotional decisions aren't working out terribly well for us.

I suggested you were being testy because you chose to ignore certain aspects of my post and decided to write, "Piffle." Which seems to me you reject, out of hand, everything that is said. That's an emotional response. Or does "Piffle." mean something I'm not familiar with?

No need to tell me what good skepticism is, but thanks for the reminder. I seek evidence for everything I can. But soft sciences are lacking in the stuff we'd like as evidence and more prone to opinions. I have said I'd like more evidence, but my feelings about Jackel's post are valid and much of his overall comment echoes what I have experienced, hence my opinion on the subject. Take it as you wish.

Trying to keep this at the level of friendly discourse is hard, but I've been trying, JillSwift. Have you?

[JillSwift]

I suggested you were being testy because you chose to ignore certain aspects of my post and decided to write, "Piffle." Which seems to me you reject, out of hand, everything that is said. That's an emotional response. Or does "Piffle." mean something I'm not familiar with?

It means I found the argument I was responding to to be nonsense. (Piffle is a real word.) I rejected the argument on its merits, not on an emotional response to it.

No need to tell me what good skepticism is, but thanks for the reminder. I seek evidence for everything I can. But soft sciences are lacking in the stuff we'd like as evidence and more prone to opinions. I have said I'd like more evidence, but my feelings about Jackel's post are valid and much of his overall comment echoes what I have experienced, hence my opinion on the subject. Take it as you wish.

I know, and I am stating my responses similarly; specifically that I find the conclusions to be very questionable because the evidence is near non-existent.

Trying to keep this at the level of friendly discourse is hard, but I've been trying, JillSwift. Have you?

I've not called into question anything but the arguments, and not made value judgments about the people. That is, I've not said anyone's argument was invalid because they were being emotional, for example.

Is that not the basis of friendly discourse?

[TheJackel]

You can go around making statements that begin with "I think..." but you don't go around with statements like "It's not hard to validate that the fact they cost the taxpayer money, or that they do occupy millions of Jobs.. Illegals don't have medical insurance when they cross the boarder, and anyone that gets hurt, ill, is pregnant, ectra costs us money.. The two links above are mere excuses to make illegal legal, and magically ok to bill me some illegal aliens medical, educational, low income housing, and food costs." without backing it up with data. No excuses. Either back up these statements or pack up. You don't say "it's not hard" to validate something then not provide the validation, that's ridiculous. So yeah, I disagree with you McQ, in this instance, with these statements: evidence is required.

The magical tooth fairy doesn't pay for this does it. If you think these statements are false, you can feel free to explain to me how illegal immigrants crossing the boarder magically have health insurance, and magically don't occupy jobs when they get one to which could otherwise go to a legal citizen. Everyone above is asking for evidence to a problem that is completely evident as an excuse to make illegal immigration legal, if not seemingly advocating it.. The following are facts you are going to have to deal with..

1) We are paying to house hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who do commit crimes. And this is regardless of your excuses in attempt to water this down to some how magically make this seem like it's not a problem.. 1 out of one million is irrelevant considering 1 million per 1 million are all illegal, and have committed a Federal Crime to begin with!.  NO EXCUSES! Otherwise we should just legalize federal crimes? How far do you think I would get if I stole the identity of a legal immigrant?

2) Not a single illegal immigrant should be here PERIOD! NO EXCUSES!.

3) Sorry but the consensus reports are in fact evidence in regards to illegal aliens voting and manipulating our government to support their cause, and others like them.. Feel free to contact your local government officials and state reps in regards to this if you think this isn't a problem.  

4) Yes we do pay for illegal immigrants education, you can feel free to call your local school board, or state representatives if you need further evidence.. Where do you think these illegals are getting their education from when they cross the boarder? It's not at the local Mc Donald's where they might be working at. And I suggest you look up your local state and government programs, grants, or in how illegal immigrants can go to college for free while a legal citizen can't even afford to go to college. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/nyreg ... =nyregion..

5) Sorry, the Links above on stolen SSN's is correct that the majority of stolen SSN's go to illegal immigrants who purchase them, or are given to them.  The majority of illegals actually partake in identity theft of the persons SSN, or sometimes their entire identity. And lets not forget that this is also Tax Fraud!. It is also employment fraud as well... And those that open up bank accounts, and credit cards with these SSN's is also all acts of committing  credit fraud!. And guess who pays for that..

6) Advocating for illegal aliens is like advocating illegal activity, credit fraud, tax fraud, employment fraud, health care fraud, federal crime, and that taxpayers should foot the bill for these peoples lives ectra.. This isn't like debating atheism vs Christianity, this is like debating piracy with people who pirate and steal software, or other types of media and think it's magically ok.  

7)  100% of all illegals committed employment fraud, a Federal Crime, used someone elses SSN or a fictitious SSN, tax fraud, occupied jobs, cost the taxpayer money, received benefits off the tax payer's back. Hence, everyone of them should be arrested, tried, or simply deported..

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/i ... D65B23519D Some interesting facts in regards to Gang activity.

9)  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/nyreg ... f=nyregion
http://www.heritage.org/Research/immigration/bg2069.cfm

Damn, I want free college too!

10 ) http://personalinsure.about.com/b/2007/ ... grants.htm

Damn I want free health care too!


Seriously, if you people want to stick your head in the sand, don't be surprised when the problem becomes overwhelmingly impossible to handle.. This reminds me how we failed to prevent our jobs from being shipped over seas because we mindlessly purchase cheap foreign slave labor imports while trying to blame the corps for trying to compete and stay in business. Our failure to control the demand of what we purchase, and why we purchase is exactly why we failed to control the job market and where the jobs are. Demand controls the market, not the Corps that are slave to the need of your demand. And yes, the big bad corps will take advantage of that if you let them.

So I really do hope Arizona gets even tougher on illegal immigration.. Take away the jobs, free health care, free education by strict enforcement and we won't need to worry about them crossing the boarder anymore because there won't be anything here for them to take advantage of. At that point the only ones you need to worry about are the drug gangs, and drug runners. All Arizona needs to do is make good is to prosecuting schools, and businesses, enforce positive ID checks for employment, and refuse medical services to illegals.. It would cost us less in the long run to enforce these big 3 key elements because eventually it would become a non-issue. In fact increasing benefits to schools and businesses that have all legal citizens and immigrants while heavily penalizing those that don't will drastically effect a more positive outcome in controlling illegal immigration.

However, I wouldn't mind expanding on helping a controlled flow of legal immigrants to succeed here in the States.. Legal immigrants at the very least show an effort to want to be legal, and want to be a contributing member of our society. People that pull their own weight are those who we want to immigrate here. And we should be strictly selective of who we allow to be here from foreign nations and who we don't allow to be here. Otherwise we may as well not even bother defending ourselves if China for example came over to take us over, we could just toss our hands in the air and call it immigration.

[McQ]

I suggested you were being testy because you chose to ignore certain aspects of my post and decided to write, "Piffle." Which seems to me you reject, out of hand, everything that is said. That's an emotional response. Or does "Piffle." mean something I'm not familiar with?

It means I found the argument I was responding to to be nonsense. (Piffle is a real word.) I rejected the argument on its merits, not on an emotional response to it.

No need to tell me what good skepticism is, but thanks for the reminder. I seek evidence for everything I can. But soft sciences are lacking in the stuff we'd like as evidence and more prone to opinions. I have said I'd like more evidence, but my feelings about Jackel's post are valid and much of his overall comment echoes what I have experienced, hence my opinion on the subject. Take it as you wish.

I know, and I am stating my responses similarly; specifically that I find the conclusions to be very questionable because the evidence is near non-existent.

Trying to keep this at the level of friendly discourse is hard, but I've been trying, JillSwift. Have you?

I've not called into question anything but the arguments, and not made value judgments about the people. That is, I've not said anyone's argument was invalid because they were being emotional, for example.

Is that not the basis of friendly discourse?

Jill, I still don't see any evidence that you rejected anything on any basis other than a visceral reaction. Sorry, but when I re-read the thread, that's what I see, so I can't agree with you on it. And no, I don't think rejection out of hand on something like this is friendly discourse. In fact, I think it's condescending. Have to disagree with you on that too. Plus, I never said your argument was invalid because you were being emotional. I posited that you were being "testy", based on your use of "Piffle" as a response. The only thing I can see from a different perspective from before is my use of the word testy, referring to your response. It's certainly no more out of line than your response, but if it is insulting to you, then I withdraw it and apologize.

It still looks as if you just ignored valid parts of what was written in order to support rejecting the whole, out of hand. And you have yet to address that assertion. If we don't agree on it, we don't agree on it. No problem for me, I just think it's disingenuous to do that in this case. Again, no hard science here with perfect answers. I don't even think we disagree all that much on the whole issue we're arguing about, so this is kind of baffling to me right now.

My point, from the beginning, is that the post by Jackel was, on the whole, with some merit. And it is, regardless of what we've said here. I will let him support his own argument, as he is doing already.