Happy Atheist Forum

I'm not sure how many other states are considering adopting a law like Arizona's (wouldn't surprise me if Texas is). As I mentioned in an earlier post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4993) Rick Scott (MediCare Fraud guy) wants to bring Arizona's law to Florida. In fact, that's about all he's betting on to get himself in Tallahassee. I'm hoping we get anybody other than this radical loon (and crook) and although I'm opposed to such a law I'm wondering if there are legitimate arguments in favor of it that aren't founded on myths and bigotry extremism.

A common argument is that they take up jobs. Well, many of them take jobs nobody else wants to do. Jobs that are even beneath those who have diplomas and degrees who can't find work. But illegal immigrants do not merely take jobs. They are consumers as well, and thus, as agreed upon by economists, create jobs by making the economy larger (although the effect is only mildly positive to neutral).  Overall, they're not hurting the economy.

It also appears to be a complete myth that they can receive welfare. Unless their children are born here, only then can they be eligible by the Jus Soli law. Tax dollars also do not go toward their emergency health treatment. Although hidden fees at hospitals do.

Another thought is, immigration is the very history of America. Part of the purpose of its existence is to take in "the tired, the poor..." to aid in the pursuit of happines... What happened to that?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgamesnet.vo.llnwd.net%2Fo1%2Fgamestar%2Fobjects%2F167593_main.jpg&hash=3e3aeb6c0b18f30ca2f83feef578cdab4088be17)

What we really need to look for are the terrorist who immigrate illegally. But how would kicking out all the workers aid this cause? We have ways of targeting and preventing terrorism, however imperfect, I don't see how this would be of any significant help.

What do you think? Do we need such stern illegal immigration laws?

Illegal immigration laws are already in place, they're just not being enforced, don't ask me why. The Arizona law is a bad bit of reactionary legislation that could very well lead to all kinds of abuses.

I do not like the way people confuse legal immigration with illegal immigration. I went through thousands of dollars to pay an immigration lawyer to bring my British wife over to this country, and the obstacle course I had to run was ridiculous. She's a highly educated coronary care nurse, we were legally married and I am an American citizen, yet I had to spend hours on the telephone with the INS going over and over my "case," one form after another to fill out only to be told that that essentially they didn't believe me. That's when I got a lawyer, and even then we were given a very difficult time. The interview with the INS officer was like being interrogated by the Gestapo.

And guess what? She's now making close to $80,000 a year working at one of the most respected coronary care units in the country. And she's a U.S. citizen.

So I get a little emotional, a little bit pissed off, when I see people standing up for the "rights" of illegal immigrants.  It's a difficult topic for me.

My biggest problem seems to be the conservatives point on being complacent with the law: it's already a federal crime. Of course I believe in States being able to create laws specific to the State, however immigration is a federal issue and State laws should have no precedence over federal issues. I believe that making a federal crime a State crime is beyond stupid.

Another major point people bring up are jobs and our countries ability to support that many new immigrants. I would think that by the amount of illegal immigrants here already that are working and buying things, that the answer would be obvious... but the answer is that our country an support them, and I think would be better all around if they were all legal.

I think the third major point is crime. However all studies have shown that (other than being illegal immigrants), illegal immigrants have the same percentage of criminals as any legal U.S. citizen in the same socioeconomic level. I don't have the studies off hand and am willing to go search for them if anyone disagrees with this point and wants me to fulfill my evidence part of the claim.

On top of that, immigration really needs a severe overhaul. It takes too long, costs too much and prevents too many people from entering legally. That's my 2 pesos on the subject.

QuoteSo I get a little emotional, a little bit pissed off, when I see people standing up for the "rights" of illegal immigrants. It's a difficult topic for me.

This is why I think the process should be made simpler (granted not all cases would be as difficult as yours). If they're in poverty I don't see how hiring a lawyer would be much of an option. And many don't won't to live permanently in the States, but wish to work so they can return to their families with a decent paycheck.

Quote from: "Sophus"

QuoteSo I get a little emotional, a little bit pissed off, when I see people standing up for the "rights" of illegal immigrants. It's a difficult topic for me.

This is why I think the process should be made simpler (granted not all cases would be as difficult as yours). If they're in poverty I don't see how hiring a lawyer would be much of an option. And many don't won't to live permanently in the States, but wish to work so they can return to their families with a decent paycheck.

Let's get very real here. What we're talking about is Mexicans. And if you're telling me that many illegal Mexican immigrants come here to make a little money and then return to Mexico then I have to ask you where you get that idea from. Come on. How much money do you think they're going to be taking back with them?

Yes! It's not politically correct for me to say that! But the constant flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico into this country is a problem that is completely out of control. For one thing, are you okay with the idea of these people creating what amounts to a huge second class of quasi-citizens, one that is by default endorsed and at the same time exploited by the United States government? The idea devalues humanity, making it into a commodity.

Can you imagine what it's like to be a Mexican laboror living in this country illegaly? That this is a situation that such a person would choose over the realities of living in his own country, away from his family and culture, speaks volumes about what it is we're all dealing with here, and to simplify the immigration process is simply not the answer.

And I think I'd probably better duck out of this thread now.

Key word is illegal, in illegal immigration. Nothing happened to "give me your tired, your poor, etc."

But illegal immigration is, well, illegal. Let's not grant more rights to people who enter the country illegally than the legal citizens. No problem with legal immigration. It's how my family got here. Is it just chic or something to bash Arizona for this? And how is their law actually illegal? I'm stumped trying to figure it out. I honestly would like to know. This isn't a strong suit for me, so I would like to be better educated on it.

Quote from: "i_am_i"And I think I'd probably better duck out of this thread now.

You're fine.    I feel you're making reasonable arguments for you case, as oppose to many others such as the Tea Party and the like.

Some of them are definitely taking jobs that, as you say, turn them into "second class quasi-citizens". Unfortunately, their circumstance here as such is probably better than it is back home, at least in some way. These are, however, jobs that need to be done and are beneath many natives. Deporting them from the country could hurt the economy. Since they're helping the economy as it is, it's difficult for me to see why their population would be considered out of control.
Honestly I don't know what all types of jobs they're taking nor am I even sure if accurate statistics can be produced for that. The way I see it though is that it's their decision and if they deem it worthy then, presumably, that's the case. Some illegal immigrants stay here for a few months or years to work before going back. Others stay and others still eventually become legal.

It would be interesting to hear why you think we shouldn't simplify the naturalization process. Especially considering all you've been through. (Not meaning to provoke any emotion here. Just a genuine curiosity.)

Arizona, however, is also fighting a drug war on its borders. So it is a little more reasonable to have this law there than it is here in Florida.

My opposition to the Arizona law has nothing to do with immigrants, legal or illegal.  It has to do with the law itself.

QuoteIt requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime â€" a misdemeanor â€" to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html


So as far as I can tell, this law is telling police that unless they harass people who may or may not be immigrants, they can be sued by the public.

I understand that illegal immigration is an issue, I just don't think this is a solution people should support.  I feel like it not only encourages racial profiling, but it mandates it.

Quote from: "McQ"Key word is illegal, in illegal immigration. Nothing happened to "give me your tired, your poor, etc."

But illegal immigration is, well, illegal. Let's not grant more rights to people who enter the country illegally than the legal citizens. No problem with legal immigration. It's how my family got here. Is it just chic or something to bash Arizona for this? And how is their law actually illegal? I'm stumped trying to figure it out. I honestly would like to know. This isn't a strong suit for me, so I would like to be better educated on it.

It's not that I think illegals should have more or as many rights, but that we should at least be understanding of the various array of crappy situations they could fall under. If a Cuban hits the coast of Florida, they can stay. They're a refugee. Well, Cuba's government is indeed more harsh than Mexico's but you also have to consider the quality of life there, among other factors. These folks are actively pursuing a better life and contributing to our economy, so as long as they don't commit any crimes that truly hurt somebody in any way or form, what real reason could I have against them being in the country?  Plenty of illegals wish to be legal. If it were so simple they would be legal.

I have friends and family members who give to charities which help those in poverty in foreign nations. Ironically, they oppose both the new health care plan and tolerating illegals because they don't want their taxes to go toward others who haven't "picked themselves up by their bootstraps". I'm still trying to figure this logic out....

Quote from: "pinkocommie"My opposition to the Arizona law has nothing to do with immigrants, legal or illegal.  It has to do with the law itself.

QuoteIt requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime â€" a misdemeanor â€" to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html


So as far as I can tell, this law is telling police that unless they harass people who may or may not be immigrants, they can be sued by the public.

I understand that illegal immigration is an issue, I just don't think this is a solution people should support.  I feel like it not only encourages racial profiling, but it mandates it.

Quote from: "url=http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/immigration.faq/index.html]CNN[/url]  "]It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

Does this mean if they hire illegal immigrants unknowlingly, employers can still be targeted? Sounds that way.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"My opposition to the Arizona law has nothing to do with immigrants, legal or illegal.  It has to do with the law itself.

QuoteIt requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime â€" a misdemeanor â€" to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html


So as far as I can tell, this law is telling police that unless they harass people who may or may not be immigrants, they can be sued by the public.

I understand that illegal immigration is an issue, I just don't think this is a solution people should support.  I feel like it not only encourages racial profiling, but it mandates it.

One thing I haven't done is actually read the law. It is undoubtedly long and full of legalese, so I've been hesitant to give it a go, especially since it's outside of any areas I'm familiar with. I'll have to eventually break down and read it. The devil is in the details, right?

I'm still perplexed at how most people who don't like the law still think it's ok for people to be in this country illegally. That's where I get hung up, because the U.S. has a process for allowing immigrants into the country. And we sure don't have nearly the toughest immigration laws in the world. We have to be able to control our borders and the influx of immigration.

Oh well, of to Chicago in a few hours, so this will have to go on the back burner for me for now.

Quote from: "McQ"Key word is illegal, in illegal immigration.

When considering to change something, just saying something is illegal is in my opinion, not good enough. There are many examples of things that were illegal and had people not peaceably broken those unjust laws, we'd probably still have separate but equal water fountains.

Quote from: "McQ"Nothing happened to "give me your tired, your poor, etc."

The cost, time and knowledge of the immigration system it takes to become a U.S. citizen has changed that. No longer does this statement match the U.S. immigration policies. But then again, maybe we should change that to not allow the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse and the homeless.

Quote from: "McQ"But illegal immigration is, well, illegal. Let's not grant more rights to people who enter the country illegally than the legal citizens.

Again, just because something is illegal doesn't mean that it should be illegal. If Christians made a law that said we all had to pray to their god everyday, would you support this just because otherwise it would be illegal?

Quote from: "McQ"No problem with legal immigration. It's how my family got here. Is it just chic or something to bash Arizona for this? And how is their law actually illegal?

Immigration is a federal issue not a state issue, so the state is attempting to take precedence over federal issues. It's kind of like a State declaring war on someone, there are some things the State is not allowed to make bills for or against. I know some people say that drugs are a federal issue but some states allow MJ, I think the difference is kind of obvious that smoking MJ is a lot different than people from another country coming into this country.

The only issue I think that is important is what damage are the illegal immigrants doing? I really don't see them causing that much harm to anyone else.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"My opposition to the Arizona law has nothing to do with immigrants, legal or illegal.  It has to do with the law itself.

QuoteIt requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime â€" a misdemeanor â€" to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html


So as far as I can tell, this law is telling police that unless they harass people who may or may not be immigrants, they can be sued by the public.

I understand that illegal immigration is an issue, I just don't think this is a solution people should support.  I feel like it not only encourages racial profiling, but it mandates it.

One thing I haven't done is actually read the law. It is undoubtedly long and full of legalese, so I've been hesitant to give it a go, especially since it's outside of any areas I'm familiar with. I'll have to eventually break down and read it. The devil is in the details, right?

I'm still perplexed at how most people who don't like the law still think it's ok for people to be in this country illegally. That's where I get hung up, because the U.S. has a process for allowing immigrants into the country. And we sure don't have nearly the toughest immigration laws in the world. We have to be able to control our borders and the influx of immigration.

Oh well, of to Chicago in a few hours, so this will have to go on the back burner for me for now.

Yeah, I'm totally on the fence about illegal immigration.  I feel like people should immigrate legally, but at the same time I think if it were that easy we wouldn't have the illegal issue that we have.  I don't know enough about the immigration process to have an informed opinion.  After hearing stories like i_am_i's, it seems like immigrating here isn't terribly easy - but I don't think that means that people who go the illegal route should be given the same treatment as people who follow the rules and jump though the hoops, so to speak.  The Arizona law, however, seems to be a poorly thought out solution to this obviously complicated issue.

So yeah - I don't think opposing the Arizona law is a vote of support for illegal immigration I guess is my point.  

Illegal immigrants are just people like you and me. They come here fleeing horrible conditions and grinding poverty you and I cannot even imagine. To act like that is a crime in itself is a little sadistic. I think we need to reform our laws. We live in a world where borders are becoming much more fluid due to advances in technology and social changes.

If anything, I think the government should target the people hiring illegal immigrants. No jobs means a decrease in illegals. The current recession is proof of that. Illegals from Mexico have stopped flowing into the States  as much, many citing the dismal job market.

Now imagine if we attacked the source of those jobs, there would be fewer illegals.

Do I think we should just open the flood gates and let anyone in? Of course not. But we also have many people we turn away or deport that would be very good citizens for this country. To me it's like banning openly gay people from the armed forces. We lose many qualified and valuable assets merely because of antiquated rules.

Quote from: "Big Mac"If anything, I think the government should target the people hiring illegal immigrants. No jobs means a decrease in illegals. The current recession is proof of that. Illegals from Mexico have stopped flowing into the States  as much, many citing the dismal job market.

Now imagine if we attacked the source of those jobs, there would be fewer illegals.

This is my thought exactly.  People "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" know what businesses hire illegals, I could name five or six businesses right here in Grand Rapids Michigan and it's probably the same elsewhere.  Make businesses in question prove their workers are legal and no one gets pulled over for "driving while Mexican" or for being brown while out walking the dog.

On a side note - the people behind this law are associated with the National Socialist Movement - yes - actual neo-Nazis.  Fucked up.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"On a side note - the people behind this law are associated with the National Socialist Movement - yes - actual neo-Nazis. Fucked up.

Srsly?  lol

For those interested in what Kylyssa's talking about:
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/04/racist-roots-of-russell-pearces-regressive-antiimmigrant-laws.html

Thanks Kylyssa.  :puke:

QuoteI have friends and family members who give to charities which help those in poverty in foreign nations. Ironically, they oppose both the new health care plan and tolerating illegals because they don't want their taxes to go toward others who haven't "picked themselves up by their bootstraps". I'm still trying to figure this logic out....

I donate to at least three charities twice a year - on my birthday and before the semester starts in the fall. They're all private charities. I'm all for private funds going to charity, but I'd like my tax dollars to go elsewhere: the fire/police department, our schools, comprehensive sex education, etc. Fundamentally speaking, I'm a Republican. It's always hard for me to admit that because I'm embarrassed to be loosely affiliated with Sarah Palin and George Bush.

I guess my point is, maybe your friends and family think that charities should be privately funded by those inclined to donate -- there are plenty of people out there who do so. In addition, it's not like the US isn't trying to make conditions in other countries better... In 2010, the US was the number one contributor to the World Food Program donating over 430 million dollars. The US government has devoted over one billion dollars and military resources to help Mexico fight powerful drug cartels. I can imagine that illegal immigration is connected to Mexico's economic stability, but just because they haven't reached their goal yet doesn't mean we should make any concessions in the United States.

I legally immigrated to the US and eventually became a US citizen and I get a bit ruffled everytime this topic comes up. Therefore, I think I best avoid speaking on the topic altogether!

Quote from: "thelittlefinch"

QuoteI have friends and family members who give to charities which help those in poverty in foreign nations. Ironically, they oppose both the new health care plan and tolerating illegals because they don't want their taxes to go toward others who haven't "picked themselves up by their bootstraps". I'm still trying to figure this logic out....

I donate to at least three charities twice a year - on my birthday and before the semester starts in the fall. They're all private charities. I'm all for private funds going to charity, but I'd like my tax dollars to go elsewhere: the fire/police department, our schools, comprehensive sex education, etc. Fundamentally speaking, I'm a Republican. It's always hard for me to admit that because I'm embarrassed to be loosely affiliated with Sarah Palin and George Bush.

I guess my point is, maybe your friends and family think that charities should be privately funded by those inclined to donate -- there are plenty of people out there who do so. In addition, it's not like the US isn't trying to make conditions in other countries better... In 2010, the US was the number one contributor to the World Food Program donating over 430 million dollars. The US government has devoted over one billion dollars and military resources to help Mexico fight powerful drug cartels. I can imagine that illegal immigration is connected to Mexico's economic stability, but just because they haven't reached their goal yet doesn't mean we should make any concessions in the United States.

I legally immigrated to the US and eventually became a US citizen and I get a bit ruffled everytime this topic comes up. Therefore, I think I best avoid speaking on the topic altogether!

My mother and her family came through Mexico legally (they are the more privileged Mexicans who have a decent amount of wealth even by American standards) and overstayed their visas. My grandmother married some guy in Missouri and they stayed there in the 70's. At age 15 she learned English on her own (there were no ESL classes back then) by studying the dictionary and immersing herself as much into the culture as possible. Today she has a Master's degree and is so Americanized you would never think she was an immigrant. She came here illegally (in the technical sense) and she is a productive member of society.

She feels strongly about the issue because a lot of immigrants flee horrible places and often are exploited because they are underground and out of sight for most people. I sympathize with the plight of all immigrants, legal and illegal. I feel the problem is that our current system makes it expensive and extremely lengthy and difficult for people to immigrate legally. I am totally behind a comprehensive immigration reform. Several industries depend on immigrants. You go to a restaurant, you are enjoying the labor exploited from immigrants. You get your car washed, check into a motel, send your kids off to school/work in your office you're enjoying janitorial services brought by immigrant hands, dry cleaning, etc.

Not to mention immigrants contribute other ways.

Ricky Ricardo was an immigrant, and his show with his wife (I Love Lucy) was one of the greatest moments in comedy. Bruce Lee was an immigrant. Albert Einstein was an immigrant to this land.

Feel free to speak, one of the great things about this country is the protected right to speak your mind. We're all big boys and girls, we can handle your view.

Don't feel bad about being a Republican. Those morons (Bush and Palin) don't represent us. I'm a Libertarian but I tend to vote Republican because they tend to be more in line with my views regarding gun rights and other personal freedoms, but I will vote for a Democrat as well. Really it's all about the person's ability to be a representative of the people and their voting record.

Quote from: "Big Mac"My mother and her family came through Mexico legally (they are the more privileged Mexicans who have a decent amount of wealth even by American standards) and overstayed their visas. My grandmother married some guy in Missouri and they stayed there in the 70's. At age 15 she learned English on her own (there were no ESL classes back then) by studying the dictionary and immersing herself as much into the culture as possible. Today she has a Master's degree and is so Americanized you would never think she was an immigrant. She came here illegally (in the technical sense) and she is a productive member of society.

She feels strongly about the issue because a lot of immigrants flee horrible places and often are exploited because they are underground and out of sight for most people. I sympathize with the plight of all immigrants, legal and illegal. I feel the problem is that our current system makes it expensive and extremely lengthy and difficult for people to immigrate legally. I am totally behind a comprehensive immigration reform. Several industries depend on immigrants. You go to a restaurant, you are enjoying the labor exploited from immigrants. You get your car washed, check into a motel, send your kids off to school/work in your office you're enjoying janitorial services brought by immigrant hands, dry cleaning, etc.

Not to mention immigrants contribute other ways.

Ricky Ricardo was an immigrant, and his show with his wife (I Love Lucy) was one of the greatest moments in comedy. Bruce Lee was an immigrant. Albert Einstein was an immigrant to this land.

Feel free to speak, one of the great things about this country is the protected right to speak your mind. We're all big boys and girls, we can handle your view.

Don't feel bad about being a Republican. Those morons (Bush and Palin) don't represent us. I'm a Libertarian but I tend to vote Republican because they tend to be more in line with my views regarding gun rights and other personal freedoms, but I will vote for a Democrat as well. Really it's all about the person's ability to be a representative of the people and their voting record.

I'm not against ALL immigration. I'm well aware of the contributions immigrants have made in the US. I'm an immigrant myself, and many brilliant minds at my University are either first or second generation immigrants. I am under no delusion that immigrants haven't done anything positive for the United States. I was just in Texas for two weeks just a few days ago, and without the many Mexican immigrants who have decided to plant their roots there, I would have never had the pleasure of experiencing true Mexican cuisine. To deprive people of that culture because of xenophobic sentiments would be a tragedy.

My mother is a nurse and provides 85% of our family's income. My dad, on the other hand, works the night shift at a warehouse. His hard work isn't discounted in my mind just because he makes significantly less than my mother, nor does his occupation make me respect him any less. In fact, I'm quite proud of him for continuing to work despite the weak compensation. When I travel and I pass by janitors at the hotels I stay in or bus boys who speak little to no English, I think of my father, and I think of the families they're working to support.

Having said that, I'm still against illegal immigration. I believe that we need serious immigration reform and that the immigration process should be made easier, but pursuing laws that make illegal immiration an option with minimal consequences is not the answer. While I don't support the whatever negative, racist results Arizona's law might produce, I do hope that it becomes a deterrent to those who are thinking about illegally immigrating while the US works to overhaul this nation's unfair immigration policies.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So as far as I can tell, this law is telling police that unless they harass people who may or may not be immigrants, they can be sued by the public.

I understand that illegal immigration is an issue, I just don't think this is a solution people should support.  I feel like it not only encourages racial profiling, but it mandates it.

This point exactly!  The problem with the legislation is that many LEGAL immigrants and citizens will be suspect.   I do not want to live in a country where the police can stop me on the street and demand my paperwork.  The legislation hurts the problem it claims to be trying to solve because it infringes on citizens' and legal aliens rights.  That's a whole new problem.

Quote from: "thelittlefinch"I'm not against ALL immigration. I'm well aware of the contributions immigrants have made in the US. I'm an immigrant myself, and many brilliant minds at my University are either first or second generation immigrants. I am under no delusion that immigrants haven't done anything positive for the United States. I was just in Texas for two weeks just a few days ago, and without the many Mexican immigrants who have decided to plant their roots there, I would have never had the pleasure of experiencing true Mexican cuisine. To deprive people of that culture because of xenophobic sentiments would be a tragedy.

My mother is a nurse and provides 85% of our family's income. My dad, on the other hand, works the night shift at a warehouse. His hard work isn't discounted in my mind just because he makes significantly less than my mother, nor does his occupation make me respect him any less. In fact, I'm quite proud of him for continuing to work despite the weak compensation. When I travel and I pass by janitors at the hotels I stay in or bus boys who speak little to no English, I think of my father, and I think of the families they're working to support.

Having said that, I'm still against illegal immigration. I believe that we need serious immigration reform and that the immigration process should be made easier, but pursuing laws that make illegal immiration an option with minimal consequences is not the answer. While I don't support the whatever negative, racist results Arizona's law might produce, I do hope that it becomes a deterrent to those who are thinking about illegally immigrating while the US works to overhaul this nation's unfair immigration policies.

It's funny because our views are not so different on this. I too feel this law in Arizona is a bad idea. Yes we need to have better control of who enters this country. I'm not in favor of opening the flood gates or building an iron fence. Neither solution will even begin to stop this. I feel that the best way to combat this is to 1.) Target the employers as the main priority because people aren't immigrating just to live on welfare. They are looking for work. and 2.) Strike at the source of the poverty and oppression.

I'm not talking about being world police, but perhaps we need to help eradicate the conditions that force people to flee their homeland. Mexico is near the point of anarchy. Cuba is in the iron grip of totalitarian Marxist state. Other countries fall into these categories.

I admit fully this comes off as idealistic.

I am personally bewildered how people who are Christian claim to be loving their neighbors but have an almost sadistic view regarding how to deal with immigrants. They treat them like they're not even human.

QuoteIllegal immigrants are just people like you and me. They come here fleeing horrible conditions and grinding poverty you and I cannot even imagine. To act like that is a crime in itself is a little sadistic.

Yep, and the fact they come here knowing the US citizen will be forced to pay for their health care, child birthing, and education couldn't possibly be sadistic.. Not only that, many do this with stolen social security numbers and end up destroying someone else's life.. 3rdly the majority of them have no care what-so-ever about this country other than what they can get from it. And let's not forget there is a rather large group out there that still views Texas and Arizona as Mexican owned land and are trying to reclaim it. Also, illegal aliens come here and vote to give them rights they should not have. Illegals already have more rights than that of a US citizen. You don't see US citizens crossing the border to vote in Canada or Mexico do you?

Now concerning the Jobs that "American's don't want" is a load of crap! In fact the retail, warehouse, construction, and service markets that make up the majority of the available jobs are flooded with illegal aliens who take these jobs away from citizens who can't find jobs, or high school and college students who need these jobs to pay for schooling and make their own livings.. And what's even worse about that is the fact that they cause the wages to be lower than what's even considered livable wages!.. Most Americans can't even afford to go to college anymore!

Illegals could give a rats ass how they effect this country so long as they get that free ride.. Hell, if Mexican Citizens paid for illegal American immigrants health care, education, allowed them to vote in their elections, and take their citizens Jobs.., I'm sure the Mexicans would be pissed off too!..

Now before you get on my case with sob stories and how inhumane I must be as some sort of irrational person not to excuse Illegal aliens committing a Federal Crime and possibly other crimes, I don't have a problem with legal immigration, or people who actually pull their own weight without me having to pay for their life while I can barely pay for my own. And don't even think about pulling the race BS card in this argument because I am not by any means racist.. Mexicans need to fix their own country and stop coming here to leech on the backs of the American taxpayer and their Jobs.. If Americans need help covering gaps in the Job market there is a thing called a work VISA, or work programs that many countries use. There is no excuse for illegal immigration..

How about this, for them to work in the US they have to join the US army, or National Guard and actually offer something that contributes to the well being of this country!(and I am not saying that some don't). And I don't see them treating American citizens like human beings but rather like silver spoons..

@TheJackel: Can you cite or offer hard evidence for any of the claims you've made? I find a few to be difficult to believe, such as "Illegals already have more rights than that of a US citizen."

I keep hearing arguments like yours, but I never see any evidence offered. In fact weasel words show up (like "many", which is meaningless in this context) much more than percentages or actual numbers, which would have meaning especially if evidenced. Nothing flips on the skeptic switch like a few weasel words.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteIllegal immigrants are just people like you and me. They come here fleeing horrible conditions and grinding poverty you and I cannot even imagine. To act like that is a crime in itself is a little sadistic.

Yep, and the fact they come here knowing the US citizen will be forced to pay for their health care, child birthing, and education couldn't possibly be sadistic.. Not only that, many do this with stolen social security numbers and end up destroying someone else's life.. 3rdly the majority of them have no care what-so-ever about this country other than what they can get from it. And let's not forget there is a rather large group out there that still views Texas and Arizona as Mexican owned land and are trying to reclaim it. Also, illegal aliens come here and vote to give them rights they should not have. Illegals already have more rights than that of a US citizen. You don't see US citizens crossing the border to vote in Canada or Mexico do you?

Now concerning the Jobs that "American's don't want" is a load of crap! In fact the retail, warehouse, construction, and service markets that make up the majority of the available jobs are flooded with illegal aliens who take these jobs away from citizens who can't find jobs, or high school and college students who need these jobs to pay for schooling and make their own livings.. And what's even worse about that is the fact that they cause the wages to be lower than what's even considered livable wages!.. Most Americans can't even afford to go to college anymore!

Illegals could give a rats ass how they effect this country so long as they get that free ride.. Hell, if Mexican Citizens paid for illegal American immigrants health care, education, allowed them to vote in their elections, and take their citizens Jobs.., I'm sure the Mexicans would be pissed off too!..

Now before you get on my case with sob stories and how inhumane I must be as some sort of irrational person not to excuse Illegal aliens committing a Federal Crime and possibly other crimes, I don't have a problem with legal immigration, or people who actually pull their own weight without me having to pay for their life while I can barely pay for my own. And don't even think about pulling the race BS card in this argument because I am not by any means racist.. Mexicans need to fix their own country and stop coming here to leech on the backs of the American taxpayer and their Jobs.. If Americans need help covering gaps in the Job market there is a thing called a work VISA, or work programs that many countries use. There is no excuse for illegal immigration..

How about this, for them to work in the US they have to join the US army, or National Guard and actually offer something that contributes to the well being of this country!(and I am not saying that some don't). And I don't see them treating American citizens like human beings but rather like silver spoons..

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.

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.   :)

@pinkocommie I'm on the opposite side of the fence but here are some facts.  

Does Immigration Cost Jobs? (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/)

Cost of Illegal Immigration (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/)

Quote from: "Sophus"@pinkocommie I'm on the opposite side of the fence but here are some facts.  :)

Quote from: "McQ"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.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "McQ"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.

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.

I'm not saying I love draconian laws either. As a Libertarian leaning person and social liberal, I don't enjoy any laws that impede social progress. But the same people who complain about no data in The Jackel's post seem to me to be the same who want to ignore the largest and most obvious fact of this whole thread, and that is that they are still illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. Regardless of Arizona's law, these people are in this country against the existing Federal Law. So I will as easily reject the arguments of those people who ignore that fact, as they make those arguments, especially if they reject, out of hand, posts and opinions like The Jackel made.

And yes, this is an emotional thing for lots of us. But the important thing is to at least talk about it, and try to find what common ground there is to first agree on. This isn't religion, where dogma rules. This is something made up of opinions, many based on emotion, some on fact, some on social influence. It's not like we can't change our minds on it. We can. We just need rational talk.

I don't dislike someone here who disagrees, but will ask for the samestandards to be in application for all who debate it. Mine too. I hate when I make logical or fallacious points. But if I become aware of them, I'm pretty good about rescinding them.

Jeez, I just wrote a ton, and I'm dog-tired. I hope when I read this tomorrow, it makes some sense!  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"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.   :D

Quote from: "pinkocommie"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.  

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "McQ"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 (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersb9dc)

Quote.  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://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml)
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/februar ... port.shtml (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/february/0222_illegals_report.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.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/world ... 88618.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/world/americas/04iht-id.2688618.html)
http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/C2007061 ... index.html (http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/C20070611165853/E20071108192333/index.html) (2007 problem gets worse)

Quote from: "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.  

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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..

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "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.

@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.

Quote from: "JillSwift"@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.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "McQ"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.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "McQ"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?

Quote from: "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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piffle) is a real word.) I rejected the argument on its merits, not on an emotional response to it.

Quote from: "McQ"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.

Quote from: "McQ"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?

QuoteYou 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. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/nyregion/05queensborough.html?ref=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..

8) http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/i ... D65B23519D (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_k6hbRdAcjgpMiYvykCWD9H;jsessionid=A415E0F6BD6159F1EF0AC3D65B23519D) Some interesting facts in regards to Gang activity.

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

Damn, I want free college too!

10 ) http://personalinsure.about.com/b/2007/ ... grants.htm (http://personalinsure.about.com/b/2007/05/31/free-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants.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.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piffle) is a real word.) I rejected the argument on its merits, not on an emotional response to it.

Quote from: "McQ"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.

Quote from: "McQ"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.

rejecting an argument for lack of evidence is hardly visceral

as it's obvious now that being skeptical of unsupported arguments is going to be addressed as emotional response here, by a mod, I've nothing else to say on this or any other subject

Quote from: "TheJackel"The magical tooth fairy doesn't pay for this does it.

Never said it did.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Yes, shift the burden of proof from the person making the positive claim to the person questioning the positive claim. That's not irrational at all... oh yeah, it is.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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..

If they were facts.

Quote from: "TheJackel"1) We are paying to house hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who do commit crimes.

Prove your positive claim or concede that it's speculation.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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..

No, I made no such attempt, I made an attempt at getting you to have an honest argument.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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!.

I clearly stated violent crimes.

Quote from: "TheJackel"NO EXCUSES! Otherwise we should just legalize federal crimes?

Good logic, if one law were unjust we might as well just not have any laws at all. Nope, I disagree.

Quote from: "TheJackel"How far do you think I would get if I stole the identity of a legal immigrant?

Lot's of legal and native citizens do steal identities as well as people that don't even step a foot in this country. Is there more from illegal immigrants?

Quote from: "TheJackel"2) Not a single illegal immigrant should be here PERIOD! NO EXCUSES!.

Not even if the guy were water boating got into an accident and the U.S. had a closer hospital and the guy can and would pay his medical bill but didn't have his passport or green card? Not even if zeh Germans are torturing and killing the Jews and made emigration illegal? Sounds like an illogical absolute stance.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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..

You're going to have to explain how the census counts as voting and manipulating the Government, not just state it.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Feel free to contact your local government officials and state reps in regards to this if you think this isn't a problem.

So instead of you providing something for your argument your just dodging it and trying to place the burden on other people... where have I seen this tactic before? Making a positive claim without evidence then trying to shift the burden of proof...

Quote from: "TheJackel"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 the cross the boarder kids? It's not at the local Mc Donald's where they might be working. And I suggest you look up your local state and government programs, grants, ectra that illegal immigrants can get to go to college for free while a legal citizen can't even afford to go to college.

More trying to drop that nasty burden of proof, please, if you think you're right and you have facts on your side, then provide them. But stop trying to shift your burden to other people.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/nyreg ... =nyregion. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/nyregion/05queensborough.html?ref=nyregion.). The majority of illegals actually partake in identity theft of the persons SSN, or sometimes their entire identity. And lets not for get that this is also Tax Fraud ppl. It is also employment fraud as well...

Yeah, let's also not forget "ppl" that at one time it was illegal for "colored people" to drink from a white mans fountain. The point: just because it's a law, doesn't mean it's a just law. Would you right now support segregation laws, just because they're laws? If you answer is anything other than yes, then you're going to have to drop this idea that, just because it's illegal it's wrong.

Quote from: "TheJackel"6) Advocating for illegal aliens is like advocating illegal activity, credit fraud, tax fraud, employment fraud, health care fraud, federal crime, taxpayers should foot the bill for these peoples live ectra..

Advocating to deport all illegal aliens is like advocating for the Nazi's, KKK, Skin Heads, communists, fascists, liberals, socialists, white supremacists... etc. See what happens when I don't have to explain anything and just make baseless false dichotomies and assertions? If your statement is true, then so is mine.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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..

Really? Just earlier you said "The majority of illegals actually partake in identity theft of the persons SSN" so is it 100% or the majority? Can you even keep your baseless assertions straight for one post?

Quote from: "TheJackel"8) http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/i ... D65B23519D (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_k6hbRdAcjgpMiYvykCWD9H;jsessionid=A415E0F6BD6159F1EF0AC3D65B23519D) Some interesting facts in regards to Gang activity.

Wow, 713 incidents a year for a city with a population over 8 million people. Not to mention that it doesn't say at all how many of these incidents are perpetrated by illegal immigrants, what kind of incidents made up the incidents (like how many were graffiti, violent crimes, marijuana possession... etc.).

Quote from: "TheJackel"9)  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/nyreg ... f=nyregion (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/nyregion/05queensborough.html?ref=nyregion)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/immigration/bg2069.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/immigration/bg2069.cfm)

Damn, I want free college too!

Then do the same thing... also please don't cite the Heritage Foundation, the place has had almost everything they produce discredited beyond all credibility.

Quote from: "TheJackel"10 ) http://personalinsure.about.com/b/2007/ ... grants.htm (http://personalinsure.about.com/b/2007/05/31/free-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants.htm)

Damn I want free health care too!

Legal and natural citizens get free health care also! So use it!

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

I'm trying not to "stick [my] head in the sand" but you apparently want us to. Instead of pointing to the data where you get all this confident knowledge from, you want us to just accept what you say. That is more about sticking ones head in the sand than is looking for the evidence.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So I really do hope Arizona gets even tougher on illegal immigration..

You're opinion, mine is different.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

The jobs will never go away, a lot of them pay way less than any legal citizen would accept.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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 school, and businesses, enforce positive ID checks 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.

All possibly good suggestions, why do you think this will work?

I do have an exception to this statement though: "refuse medical services to illegals." Do we check the ID of someone who's been stabbed after being mugged? His wallet stolen, no way to prove he's a legal resident, better just dump him into an alley to finish dying.

Quote from: "TheJackel"However, I wouldn't mind expanding on helping a controlled flow of legal immigrants 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.

Many illegal immigrants have also shown an effort, but often the cost is too high for the pay they make in their country, but the pay they make in the U.S. may just allow them to save enough to pay for the immigration services. Maybe the problem isn't the illegal immigrants, but the naturalization process.

Quote from: "McQ"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.

I really have to disagree very strongly here: TheJackal keeps trying to drop the burden of proof onto other people (explained in my previous post), is using condescending language (like: "it's not hard to validate that the fact" and "if you people want to stick your head in the sand") and is providing links to things that are either bad sources or not related. I read those whole links and research them only to find out they're useless. It wastes my time and that is very rude to begin with, when he should vett his sources before posting them.

Pointing out that someone needs evidence to support their positive claims should be standard. Speculation is fine, but statements like "if you people want to stick your head in the sand" is a long ways away from the person thinking they're just speculating, because the statement means that if you don't see it the way he see's then we're willingly ignoring the evidence. When there is no evidence.

Looks like it's my turn to chime in but I rather like the way Davin's handled this so far. Nothing else to add just yet.  

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "McQ"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.

I really have to disagree very strongly here: TheJackal keeps trying to drop the burden of proof onto other people (explained in my previous post), is using condescending language (like: "it's not hard to validate that the fact" and "if you people want to stick your head in the sand") and is providing links to things that are either bad sources or not related. I read those whole links and research them only to find out they're useless. It wastes my time and that is very rude to begin with, when he should vett his sources before posting them.

Pointing out that someone needs evidence to support their positive claims should be standard. Speculation is fine, but statements like "if you people want to stick your head in the sand" is a long ways away from the person thinking they're just speculating, because the statement means that if you don't see it the way he see's then we're willingly ignoring the evidence. When there is no evidence.

Probably best to direct this at The Jackel then. I already said I'm letting support his own arguments. I hear what your saying here though.

Quote from: "JillSwift"rejecting an argument for lack of evidence is hardly visceral

as it's obvious now that being skeptical of unsupported arguments is going to be addressed as emotional response here, by a mod, I've nothing else to say on this or any other subject

Wow. This is absolutely unfair. I am in this thread as a forum member, just like you, with the right to post my thoughts like anyone else here. In no way have I acted in a capacity as a moderator. I also apologized to you directly for the very thing you seemed to be offended by and you've chosen to ignore it. Fine. You don't have to accept an apology, but you seem to have gone out of your way to ignore it and several other clarification points I've made.

You may not agree with me in this thread, but I have not threatened you or pulled out my Mod Badge. You have conflated arguments and misrepresented me and what I've been trying to say as well. Everyone loses when this happens, because you will now continue to assume the worst and miss out on opportunities to find common ground. That's just a waste. And before this thread becomes hijacked any further, that's the last I'll say on the issue. Any further posts on this problem should be made via PM.

Now let's get back to Arizona's immigration law, please.  

QuoteIf they were facts.

Ahh that's because they are facts, and playing the I'm intentionally ignorant game isn't winning you brownie points here. If you are unable to realize that when someone crosses the border and they need a JOB, they will indeed need a SSN to which they will use in regards to everything they do here.. Thus everything they do is committing federal crimes, or fraud. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what is going on here. And like I said, if you need further proof, I suggest you actually do some of your own real research.

QuoteProve your positive claim or concede that it's speculation.

Here is a starting point for you, visit your own state prisons and ask some questions.. If you think I am going to drag you around the Nation to touch, see, and smell everyone of them so you can feel satisfied, you are deluding yourself. All it takes is a bit of research, and you seemingly won't except anyone else's research.. So perhaps it's time that you give yourself a reality check and do your own digging.

QuoteNo, I made no such attempt, I made an attempt at getting you to have an honest argument.

If you have done your own research vs jumping out and stating my arguments are dishonest, you wouldn't be making this comment.

QuoteI clearly stated violent crimes.

This is irrelevant because the focus was never on just violent crimes.. And, these only add to the pile of crimes listed.. Nor does your argument here excuse any crime committed.

QuoteGood logic, if one law were unjust we might as well just not have any laws at all. Nope, I disagree.

Oh so now we go into claiming federal crimes are "unjust" to support one's argument? You seriously are going to try and claim that SSN theft, credit fraud, employment fraud, Identity theft, ectra are now all magically unjust laws? I guess we should not even bother protecting ourselves. Maybe we should just all leave our homes and jobs and just hand them over.. Your argument is completely illogical, this isn't about some dumb law that states you can't wear red shoes or something..

QuoteLot's of legal and native citizens do steal identities as well as people that don't even step a foot in this country. Is there more from illegal immigrants?

That wasn't the question. And that argument once again is irrelevant.. I can say lots of legals might steal identities to sell to illegals, criminals, ectra... That doesn't neglect that 1 million per 1 million illegals do not have legal SSN's, or identities... Do the math, or at least google SSN's being sold.

QuoteNot even if the guy were water boating got into an accident and the U.S. had a closer hospital and the guy can and would pay his medical bill but didn't have his passport or green card? Not even if zeh Germans are torturing and killing the Jews and made emigration illegal? Sounds like an illogical absolute stance.

Now you are playing circular games while knowing that my point is about illegal aliens living here illegally and has nothing to do with helping some guy who gets into an accident and requires assistance.. In this case you help him get well, deport him, and then bill him for the medical expenses. And German torture camp thing is used like candy by people crossing the border as a false argument to support their cause. Now if such a thing were true, I can see granting an asylum, and maybe giving him legal status.

QuoteYou're going to have to explain how the census counts as voting and manipulating the Government, not just state it.

Here again you lack the ability to do your own research.. How many illegals live here in the United States? Ahh, we get those numbers how? Have you bothered to call state, or government, or even the INS? And the counts are done by counting the ballots that have duplicate SSN's, and fictitious SSN's belonging to illegal immigrants to whom make up the mass majority of those numbers. Again you can feel free to do your own research.

QuoteSo instead of you providing something for your argument your just dodging it and trying to place the burden on other people... where have I seen this tactic before? Making a positive claim without evidence then trying to shift the burden of proof...

I'm not dodging at all, you will apparently ignore any link, or information I can provide you over the internet, or any study or research that has been done in order to support your position. Thus, I have given you options and a means to do your own research. Thus, the only dodger here is you, because the sources I provided are valid and logical sources for you to explore.

QuoteMore trying to drop that nasty burden of proof, please, if you think you're right and you have facts on your side, then provide them. But stop trying to shift your burden to other people.

Again you are dodging and playing a circular game. Have you contacted your school board, government and state sources? If the links I provided you are not evidence for you, then you need to actually take the time and investigate when you are being entirely dismissive of any other information provided. You can start by calling the obvious places like California's School Districts, Local State government Offices, INS, IRS, and even the local police departments and prison systems.  

QuoteYeah, let's also not forget "ppl" that at one time it was illegal for "colored people" to drink from a white mans fountain. The point: just because it's a law, doesn't mean it's a just law. Would you right now support segregation laws, just because they're laws? If you answer is anything other than yes, then you're going to have to drop this idea that, just because it's illegal it's wrong.

Oh how offensive this is considering I'm not a white man! Tossing out the race card to support your argument is pathetic, and I greatly take offense to that. The Federal Laws concerning SSN's, and fraud, and other crimes associated with ID theft ectra are not racially bias, or unjust laws! Why kind of insane argument are you trying to make here? These laws are designed to protect everyone and not just some little group of white men.. And no, we don't have to drop the idea that just because it's illegal that it's wrong, especially in this argument..

QuoteAdvocating to deport all illegal aliens is like advocating for the Nazi's, KKK, Skin Heads, communists, fascists, liberals, socialists, white supremacists... etc. See what happens when I don't have to explain anything and just make baseless false dichotomies and assertions? If your statement is true, then so is mine.

What a load of crap, and here you are trying to dishonestly play a sympathy game for when these illegals made the choice to come here illegally.. We did not make this choice for them to commit these crimes, or to jump the fence. Your argument is like blaming a legal teenage girl for X illegal jumping the fence and breaking his leg, and then expecting her to give him her SSN, identity, her job,  and pay for his broken leg, all while letting him vote in her elections.. Good luck with that argument..

QuoteReally? Just earlier you said "The majority of illegals actually partake in identity theft of the persons SSN" so is it 100% or the majority? Can you even keep your baseless assertions straight for one post?

Majority being true, and that is because there is a percentage of fictitious SSN's.. Not every illegal has someone else's number, but they are all committing fraud, and federal crimes. Identity theft is just one of several federal crimes they commit. As I had stated earlier in one of my responses, and clearly shown in the voting consensus that tallies ficticious, stolen, or purchased SSN's.. And you can't blame millions of ficticious, stolen, or purchased SSN's on common criminals considering they still have the right to vote regardless if they are in prison or running from the law. So where do you think these SSN's go? It's surely not Santa's little elves.  

QuoteWow, 713 incidents a year for a city with a population over 8 million people. Not to mention that it doesn't say at all how many of these incidents are perpetrated by illegal immigrants, what kind of incidents made up the incidents (like how many were graffiti, violent crimes, marijuana possession... etc.).

Fair enough, so I will provide more specific information:

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_ ... gangs.html (http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_gangs.html)
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=37374 (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=37374)
http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/gangrelease.html (http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/gangrelease.html)
http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enfo ... ting-in-US (http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m1d20-Illegal-Alien-Gang-Violence-Proliferating-in-US)
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/05/do ... index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/05/dobbs.illegal/index.html)
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/illegal-gangs.html (http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/illegal-gangs.html)
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_t ... alien.html (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html)

Heck, I can list thousands of links for you. I in fact got 1,300,000 results from just a google search of illegal immigrant gangs, and I am not about to sit here and list them all for you.

QuoteDamn, I want free college too!

Then do the same thing... also please don't cite the Heritage Foundation, the place has had almost everything they produce discredited beyond all credibility.
[/quote]
A: Illegals shouldn't have any access to these
B: I am legal citizen and should have access to these
C: I don't qualify, as most Americans do not qualify or ever receive a free college education
 

Quote from: "TheJackel"10 ) http://personalinsure.about.com/b/2007/ ... grants.htm (http://personalinsure.about.com/b/2007/05/31/free-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants.htm)

QuoteLegal and natural citizens get free health care also! So use it!

A: I don't qualify
B: Illegals should have no access to this and should pay for any costs they put forth to us.. If I have to pay a 500 dollar ride to the hospital, so should the illegal alien that breaks his leg jumping the fence, gets hurt, or even ill while being across our border..
C: These are things we provide for legals who can't afford health care, and it's basic health care to which has nothing to do with having to take a trip to the hospital ectra.. A poor American woman who gives birth will be expected to pay for her stay in the hospital, and yet an illegal walks out the door expecting someone like that poor American woman giving birth to incur this her illegal immigrant costs.


I will finish replying to the rest after work.. Cheers.

I would just like to interject that I was very poor when I gave birth to my son and all of the medical costs were in fact paid for by the state.  I had serious complications with my birth and ended up having to stay in the hospital longer than normal, plus have several procedures done that were not planned for, and I still was never expected to pay.  I had an emergency C-section which re-opened after I went home, causing me to have to go to the doctor every other day for a few weeks to have the incision packed with gauze and cauterized, and I was never expected to pay for these visits either.

I think this is why I'm not terribly swayed by TheJackel's arguments in this particular case - I can plainly see misinformation being spread.  That's why these posts seem more of an emotional plea than anything and makes me distrust the source.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I would just like to interject that I was very poor when I gave birth to my son and all of the medical costs were in fact paid for by the state.  I had serious complications with my birth and ended up having to stay in the hospital longer than normal, plus have several procedures done that were not planned for, and I still was never expected to pay.  I had an emergency C-section which re-opened after I went home, causing me to have to go to the doctor every other day for a few weeks to have the incision packed with gauze and cauterized, and I was never expected to pay for these visits either.

I think this is why I'm not terribly swayed by TheJackel's arguments in this particular case - I can plainly see misinformation being spread.  That's why these posts seem more of an emotional plea than anything and makes me distrust the source.

I'm glad you were able to have cost of serious care covered, Pinko. Much of the problem with health coverage in the US for poverty level families and individuals is that they are not aware of what access they do have. Sadly though, it still looks like the poorer you are, the worse your medical treatment is overall.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Ahh that's because they are facts, and playing the I'm intentionally ignorant game isn't winning you brownie points here. If you are unable to realize that when someone crosses the border and they need a JOB, they will indeed need a SSN to which they will use in regards to everything they do here.. Thus everything they do is committing federal crimes, or fraud. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what is going on here. And like I said, if you need further proof, I suggest you actually do some of your own real research.

Just calling them facts, doesn't make them facts. And like I said, don't shift your burden of proof off onto the people your talking to, when you make a positive claim, you bring the evidence.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Here is a starting point for you, visit your own state prisons and ask some questions.. If you think I am going to drag you around the Nation to touch, see, and smell everyone of them so you can feel satisfied, you are deluding yourself. All it takes is a bit of research, and you seemingly won't except anyone else's research.. So perhaps it's time that you give yourself a reality check and do your own digging.

Here it is again: if you make a claim, you support it. How about this: "illegal immigrants increase the standard of living for the middle class, if you want proof then do the research."

Quote from: "TheJackel"If you have done your own research vs jumping out and stating my arguments are dishonest, you wouldn't be making this comment.

If you're not providing evidence for your speculations and call them "facts" then you're being dishonest. If you say that the responsibility for providing evidence for your claims is on the people questioning you, that's dishonest. If you're stating that those who don't see the world how you see it are just ignoring the issues, then you're being dishonest.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI clearly stated violent crimes.

This is irrelevant because the focus was never on just violent crimes.. And, these only add to the pile of crimes listed.. Nor does your argument here excuse any crime committed.

So no one is able to talk anything other than you want to talk about? That's kind of disingenuous if you will only talk about the points you want to cover.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote

Quote from: "TheJackel"NO EXCUSES! Otherwise we should just legalize federal crimes?

Good logic, if one law were unjust we might as well just not have any laws at all. Nope, I disagree.

Oh so now we go into claiming federal crimes are "unjust" to support one's argument? You seriously are going to try and claim that SSN theft, credit fraud, employment fraud, Identity theft, ectra are now all magically unjust laws? I guess we should not even bother protecting ourselves. Maybe we should just all leave our homes and jobs and just hand them over.. Your argument is completely illogical, this isn't about some dumb law that states you can't wear red shoes or something..

I was pointing out that you're statement was irrational. Now instead of listening to what I said, you're putting words into my mouth, creating a straw man and using dishonest argument tactics. Just stop and be honest.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteLot's of legal and native citizens do steal identities as well as people that don't even step a foot in this country. Is there more from illegal immigrants?

That wasn't the question. And that argument once again is irrelevant.. I can say lots of legals might steal identities to sell to illegals, criminals, ectra... That doesn't neglect that 1 million per 1 million illegals do not have legal SSN's, or identities... Do the math, or at least google SSN's being sold.

Wow, you never provide evidence for your claims, and keep asking everyone else to do the work for you.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote

Quote from: "TheJackel"2) Not a single illegal immigrant should be here PERIOD! NO EXCUSES!.

Not even if the guy were water boating got into an accident and the U.S. had a closer hospital and the guy can and would pay his medical bill but didn't have his passport or green card? Not even if zeh Germans are torturing and killing the Jews and made emigration illegal? Sounds like an illogical absolute stance.

Now you are playing circular games while knowing that my point is about illegal aliens living here illegally and has nothing to do with helping some guy who gets into an accident and requires assistance.. In this case you help him get well, deport him, and then bill him for the medical expenses. And German torture camp thing is used like candy by people crossing the border as a false argument to support their cause. Now if such a thing were true, I can see granting an asylum, and maybe giving him legal status.

How am I playing circular games when I've made just one reply post to you? You're the one who made an absolute statement PERIOD! NO EXCUSES!. Now you're adjusting your absolute statement because I pointed it out, good job, but maybe you shouldn't have made the absolute statement in the first place.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteYou're going to have to explain how the census counts as voting and manipulating the Government, not just state it.

Here again you lack the ability to do your own research.. How many illegals live here in the United States? Ahh, we get those numbers how? Have you bothered to call state, or government, or even the INS? And the counts are done by counting the ballots that have duplicate SSN's, and fictitious SSN's belonging to illegal immigrants to whom make up the mass majority of those numbers. Again you can feel free to do your own research.

Once again you're trying to shift the burden of proof onto other people for your claims. Without even answering (even with just speculation), how the census counts as voting and manipulating the Government.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteSo instead of you providing something for your argument your just dodging it and trying to place the burden on other people... where have I seen this tactic before? Making a positive claim without evidence then trying to shift the burden of proof...

I'm not dodging at all, you will apparently ignore any link, or information I can provide you over the internet, or any study or research that has been done in order to support your position. Thus, I have given you options and a means to do your own research. Thus, the only dodger here is you, because the sources I provided are valid and logical sources for you to explore.

I didn't ignore the links, I wasted time reading them and researching them. If the links don't support what you're saying when you link them, then it's your fault.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteMore trying to drop that nasty burden of proof, please, if you think you're right and you have facts on your side, then provide them. But stop trying to shift your burden to other people.

Again you are dodging and playing a circular game. Have you contacted your school board, government and state sources? If the links I provided you are not evidence for you, then you need to actually take the time and investigate when you are being entirely dismissive of any other information provided. You can start by calling the obvious places like California's School Districts, Local State government Offices, INS, IRS, and even the local police departments and prison systems.

It's not a circular game it's the standard of evidence. I'd really have no problem if you said that your conclusions are just mere speculation and that you don't have any reasonable evidence to back it up and other people may come to a different conclusion based on the little evidence you provided. Really, just stop saying that people that disagree with your baseless assertions are ignoring the evidence, when you're not providing any.k

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteYeah, let's also not forget "ppl" that at one time it was illegal for "colored people" to drink from a white mans fountain. The point: just because it's a law, doesn't mean it's a just law. Would you right now support segregation laws, just because they're laws? If you answer is anything other than yes, then you're going to have to drop this idea that, just because it's illegal it's wrong.

Oh how offensive this is considering I'm not a white man! Tossing out the race card to support your argument is pathetic, and I greatly take offense to that. The Federal Laws concerning SSN's, and fraud, and other crimes associated with ID theft ectra are not racially bias, or unjust laws! Why kind of insane argument are you trying to make here? These laws are designed to protect everyone and not just some little group of white men.. And no, we don't have to drop the idea that just because it's illegal that it's wrong, especially in this argument..

I wasn't tossing the race card at all, I was tossing the "unjust laws should be changed" card into the mix, but if you want to get all racist on my ass then go ahead. The other point is, "just because it's illegal, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong." But go ahead and use my example of "people peaceably being civilly disobedient in order to change unjust laws" into something racial that you get offended by. Go ahead, try to drop this example showing you that your absolutes are irrational. That by the way, is another dishonest argument tactic.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteAdvocating to deport all illegal aliens is like advocating for the Nazi's, KKK, Skin Heads, communists, fascists, liberals, socialists, white supremacists... etc. See what happens when I don't have to explain anything and just make baseless false dichotomies and assertions? If your statement is true, then so is mine.

What a load of crap, and here you are trying to dishonestly play a sympathy game for when these illegals made the choice to come here illegally.. We did not make this choice for them to commit these crimes, or to jump the fence. Your argument is like blaming a legal teenage girl for X illegal jumping the fence and breaking his leg, and then expecting her to give him her SSN, identity, her job,  and pay for his broken leg, all while letting him vote in her elections.. Good luck with that argument..

I'm just providing an equal statement, supported by equal evidence, being equally offensive to the statement you made. So you accept my statement as "fact" like you want us to accept your statement. We both get to play by the same rules. If you make baseless assertions and state that they're "facts", then I get to as well and you have no way of disregarding my statements without applying the same rules to your own statements (thereby you refuting yourself).

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteReally? Just earlier you said "The majority of illegals actually partake in identity theft of the persons SSN" so is it 100% or the majority? Can you even keep your baseless assertions straight for one post?

Majority being true, and that is because there is a percentage of fictitious SSN's.. Not every illegal has someone else's number, but they are all committing fraud, and federal crimes. Identity theft is just one of several federal crimes they commit. As I had stated earlier in one of my responses, and clearly shown in the voting consensus that tallies ficticious, stolen, or purchased SSN's..

Good job, now you just need to provide some kind of evidence for your statement that the majority have SSN's, or just say that's it's made up.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteWow, 713 incidents a year for a city with a population over 8 million people. Not to mention that it doesn't say at all how many of these incidents are perpetrated by illegal immigrants, what kind of incidents made up the incidents (like how many were graffiti, violent crimes, marijuana possession... etc.).

Fair enough, so I will provide more specific information:

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_ ... gangs.html (http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_gangs.html)
Roughly half the links are dead on this article, none of the rest are facts, just links to other articles that don't have facts... but some of them link to other articles that don't have facts, but links to other articles.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=37374 (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=37374)
Now I may not be a math wiz here, but 12 rapes committed by illegal aliens out of 461,620 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm) seems kind of low. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I'm just saying that; when you've been stabbed in your chest and you have a scrape on your knee, you should focus on the stab wound first.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/gangrelease.html (http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/gangrelease.html)
Here's some wrongness here:

Quote25-50% of all gangsters arrested in northern and western Virginia are estimated to be deportable aliens.  Gang investigators estimate that 90% of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal aliens.

25-50% is a huge margin of error, way to big to be taken seriously. And "Gang investigators" is just an appeal to an unknown, uncredited authority.

Otherwise if you cut out all the "authority x estimates that y" crap out of the article it's not that bad, biased, but not too bad.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cis.org%2Farticles%2F2008%2Fgangs1.gif&hash=d75e906dac39d5fc87889652b8dbf1b0e3e60813)

71% of the gang members arrested, were arrested for EWI or Entry Without Inspection. While 4% of them are LPR or Lawful Permanent Resident. While this is interesting it mostly covers data for one gang (MS-13), and doesn't provide any details of the crimes these illegal immigrants are committing.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enfo ... ting-in-US (http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m1d20-Illegal-Alien-Gang-Violence-Proliferating-in-US)
Ok, so it's hard for government agents to categorize and define gangs, this doesn't have anything to do with what and how many crimes are being committed by illegal immigrants.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/05/do ... index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/06/05/dobbs.illegal/index.html)
Awesome, yet again no specifics other than a majority of some gangs are foreign born (doesn't mean illegal immigrant) and there are an estimated amount of gang members higher than the amount of state and local police.

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/illegal-gangs.html (http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/illegal-gangs.html)
Wow seriously? This whole article is based on unfounded speculation, and the only source they have is the D.C.'s law enforcement website's description of the Mexican Mafia? Ridiculous, huge waste of my time.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_t ... alien.html (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html)
About 20 pages of fluff and speculation, yet another huge waste of my time.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Heck, I can list thousands of links for you..

I'm sure you could just find thousands of random links that have nothing to do with the topic at hand... but that's not what I'm asking for. This thing about posting random links that provide hardly any specifics at all (unfounded or not), doesn't help you at all and it's extremely rude.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteDamn, I want free college too!

Then do the same thing... also please don't cite the Heritage Foundation, the place has had almost everything they produce discredited beyond all credibility.

A: Illegals shouldn't have any access to these
B: I am legal citizen and should have access to these
C: I don't qualify, as most Americans do not qualify or ever receive a free college education

The article you cited said nothing of free college. It stated some financial aid, but not free college. Just call it what it is, some financial support and I don't have a problem with not supporting an illegal immigrants pursuit of higher education, but I wouldn't say it's free when it's not.
 

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "TheJackel"10 ) http://personalinsure.about.com/b/2007/ ... grants.htm (http://personalinsure.about.com/b/2007/05/31/free-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants.htm)

QuoteLegal and natural citizens get free health care also! So use it!

A: I don't qualify
B: Illegals should have no access to this and should pay for any costs they put forth to us.. If I have to pay a 500 dollar ride to the hospital, so should the illegal alien that breaks his leg jumping the fence, hurt, or ill while being across our border..
C: These are things we provide for legals who can't afford health care, and it's basic health care to which has nothing to do with having to take a trip to the hospital ectra.. A poor American woman who gives birth will be expected to pay for her stay in the hospital, and yet an illegal walks out the door expecting someone like that poor American woman giving birth to incur this illegal immigrants costs.

A: Illegal immigrants don't qualify either
B: I see, if you have to do something then everyone else should have to do it too
C: There are free clinics

I'll agree that there shouldn't be any illegal immigrants here. My reasoning for this is that if there were no illegal immigrants here that would mean that our boarders are secure, and these days that is really, really important. We're fighting this bogus war on terrorism in the middle east and yet at the same time anyone with the wherewithal or determination can get into this country and move about undetected. Now that's just just plain stupid.

Meanwhile there are a hell of a lot of illegal immigrants already here. For all I know the man who takes care of my yard and the woman who cleans my house, both hard-working Mexicans with families, are here illegally. Now these are people I trust and respect, they're almost a part of the family and they are certainly my friends. I hate the idea of them being harshly dealt with.

Really, I just don't know what else to say, except that it's wrong to make sweeping generalizations about human beings. If we can all calm down and try to approach this from a position of basic respect for humanity then we'll be in a much better position to deal with this problem, in my opinion.

Quote from: "i_am_i"I'll agree that there shouldn't be any illegal immigrants here. My reasoning for this is that if there were no illegal immigrants here that would mean that our boarders are secure, and these days that is really, really important. We're fighting this bogus war on terrorism in the middle east and yet at the same time anyone with the wherewithal or determination can get into this country and move about undetected. Now that's just just plain stupid.

Meanwhile there are a hell of a lot of illegal immigrants already here. For all I know the man who takes care of my yard and the woman who cleans my house, both hard-working Mexicans with families, are here illegally. Now these are people I trust and respect, they're almost a part of the family and they are certainly my friends. I hate the idea of them being harshly dealt with.

Really, I just don't know what else to say, except that it's wrong to make sweeping generalizations about human beings. If we can all calm down and try to approach this from a position of basic respect for humanity then we'll be in a much better position to deal with this problem, in my opinion.

Well put.

QuoteJust calling them facts, doesn't make them facts. And like I said, don't shift your burden of proof off onto the people your talking to, when you make a positive claim, you bring the evidence.

No they are fact because I have done my own research to know very well that they are indeed pretty damn accurate. Hence, the specifics you are looking for is not going to be readily available on the internet and requires you to actually get off your tuff and makes some phone calls. I didn't shift the burden of proof on you, I told you how you can acquire the evidence yourself.. Don't get upset because you are to lazy to face reality.. Your argument is like I can't prove to you that a building was built without giving you the blue prints to which you can't access online.. You have to go to local state government to get them.. And most of your arguments really show how disconnected you are to what really goes on in this country.  

QuoteHere it is again: if you make a claim, you support it. How about this: "illegal immigrants increase the standard of living for the middle class, if you want proof then do the research."

So do prison inmates that do community service. Your argument here is entirely irrelevant, and the Legal citizens and immigrants do that as well... You may as well try and make the argument that someone who was a firefighter to whom commits a federal crime of ID theft should magically set free with impunity to any charges or accountability for his crimes. That is how silly your argument is. Damn, we may as well make fraud and ID theft legal because someone might otherwise be contributing by making us burgers as Mc Donald's or working on a cure for aids... Absolutely ridiculous argument, and you make that argument as if Legal citizens can't possibly increase their own standards of living without illegal immigrants..

QuoteIf you're not providing evidence for your speculations and call them "facts" then you're being dishonest. If you say that the responsibility for providing evidence for your claims is on the people questioning you, that's dishonest. If you're stating that those who don't see the world how you see it are just ignoring the issues, then you're being dishonest.

Wrong, you simply just assume any evidence provided is magically false without even attempting contact the places I told you where you can get such information from.. And the funny part is, you know I'm right, and I know I am right because I have contacted, and discussed these things with my local government offices, INS, IRS, School boards, and police departments.. I actually go to town meetings ectra.. And it doesn't take much effort to call these places in California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Boston, or Florida to where these problems are at their worst.

QuoteSo no one is able to talk anything other than you want to talk about? That's kind of disingenuous if you will only talk about the points you want to cover.

What? Nobody stated you couldn't.. Hence, I am looking at the big picture or the whole picture and not just one segment of it.. You on the other hand just want to continue to make counter arguments to excuse the illegality of illegal immigrants and the Federal crimes they commit.. You essentially slap those who come here legally in the face, and those who make a genuine effort to earn their citizen ship without committing Fraud, or federal crimes. And the funny thing is, legal immigrants can't stand illegal immigrants for the very same reasons, and that is because they too have to put up with ID theft, and pay for these fence jumpers looking to receive a free hand out on the backs of everyone else..  

QuoteI was pointing out that you're statement was irrational. Now instead of listening to what I said, you're putting words into my mouth, creating a straw man and using dishonest argument tactics. Just stop and be honest.

Ahh the back peddle, and then the claim to irrationality to cover that up. Seriously, I am hardly being irrational vs being blunt. And I have no idea where you get the notion that my argument on legality, and federal crime has anything to do with creating straw man arguments, or dishonest tactics.  My argument is pretty sound when it comes to the legality of this issue, and why your are trying to argue yourself around legality with circular arguments to magically give a free pass to federal crimes, ID theft, credit fraud, and employment fraud.. The only one creating straw man arguments is you at this point.

QuoteWow, you never provide evidence for your claims, and keep asking everyone else to do the work for you.

Every single illegal immigrant is empirical evidence of those claims.. They all have either false documents, ID's, SSN's, stolen SSN's, Purchased SSN's, or Ficticious SSN's.. They all have committed Tax fraud, credit fraud, employment fraud, or a Federal crime.. They are all here illegally... End of Story! Hence, if they were legal they wouldn't be illegal would they?.. It only takes commonsense to even understand this, and what the implications and consequences are, and you simply expect America to foot the bill and suck it up!  Sorry but the silver spoon needs to be tossed in the trashcan. Arizona is doing the right thing, to slowly take away the jobs, schooling, anker baby, or any other means to which illegals take advantage of.. Once that is all taken away, we won't have to worry about this argument anymore because if there isn't anything here for them, they simply won't come here illegally anymore. The buck has to stop somewhere! And that beats having to put troops at the border.

QuoteHow am I playing circular games when I've made just one reply post to you? You're the one who made an absolute statement PERIOD! NO EXCUSES!. Now you're adjusting your absolute statement because I pointed it out, good job, but maybe you shouldn't have made the absolute statement in the first place.

Trying to infuse the Hitler or Nazi fascists argument into the mix is playing circular games, and is entirely dishonest. And my absolute statement was always directed at illegal aliens jumping to borders to come here illegally by intention and had nothing to do with random accidents or extenuating circumstances, and you know it. Thus, you are playing circular arguments.

"TheJackel"

QuoteYou're going to have to explain how the census counts as voting and manipulating the Government, not just state it.

QuoteOnce again you're trying to shift the burden of proof onto other people for your claims. Without even answering (even with just speculation), how the census counts as voting and manipulating the Government.

Again you are wrong.. You reject any information I do provide, and you don't bother to google any information to which is contrary to your argument, or bother to follow through with the options of actually researching it yourself. I am not shifting the burden of proof, I am advocating that you get off your butt and make some simple calls.. You want to know how the IRS, INS, or the Census Bureau get their facts and statistics, you need to contact them!  

Here, I will help you get started by directing you to the Census Bureau Website, with 10 pages of PDF documents on illegal immigrants.. And what you can't find on their site, you can call them!

http://search.census.gov/search?q=illeg ... s&access=p (http://search.census.gov/search?q=illegal+immigrant&spell=1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=census&access=p)

QuoteI didn't ignore the links, I wasted time reading them and researching them. If the links don't support what you're saying when you link them, then it's your fault.

Ahh, actually they do.. They only way you get multi-million undocumented votes, SSN's, ectra is via illegal aliens.. All illegal aliens have committed fraud, and federal crimes. Sorry, but you need to deal with that. Perhaps you also need to visit the local ER, or Hospital in Arizona, or California to where illegal aliens go and get free health care.. You aren't going to find all the empirical evidence on the internet.. Your basic argument is deny it all while knowing what I am telling you is not incorrect. Thus the basic points are as follows:

1) 100% are all illegal
2) 100% are all undocumented
3) 100% all either have ficticious SSN's, stolen SSN's, or purchased SSN's
4) Illegal aliens do in fact VOTE!
5) 100% all have committed employment fraud
6) 100% all have committed tax fraud
7) 100% all have committed a Federal Crime
8) 100% all have cost us taxpayers money jumping the fence
9) Thousands commit further crime, and thousands are in our prison system
10) Illegal immigrant Gangs pose a big problem, and an ever increasing problem
11) 100% have all committed credit fraud (just by using fake ID's or SSN's to open bank accounts, or to even have cable TV)
13) Every American that has their ID stolen by an illegal immigrant goes through hell trying to rectify it, and it costs them money, time, and stress.. Many have their entire credit history destroyed and end up paying for it.  
14) all of these are valid reasons to deport, make it absolutely illegal to hire them, or take away any benefits they could possibly capitalize on by levying hefty fines on businesses, banks, or schools for having them.. These should receive benefits for having legal immigrants to give incentives to not just the schools, banks, and businesses, but to legal immigrants that come here through the proper channels..

QuoteIt's not a circular game it's the standard of evidence. I'd really have no problem if you said that your conclusions are just mere speculation and that you don't have any reasonable evidence to back it up and other people may come to a different conclusion based on the little evidence you provided. Really, just stop saying that people that disagree with your baseless assertions are ignoring the evidence, when you're not providing any.k

Wrong because I have all those sources to back me up! Hence, I have called and contacted many of these places, and I have yet to have one not concur to my overall assessment.. If you want to just disagree with me that is up to you, but if you really want to challenge me, I dare you to even call the INS, or just one of California's main school districts ectra.. Hell, call the IRS on figures for the last election in regards to this issue.. Like I said, the problem with your argument is that the evidence you so specifically want can only be accessed by contacting them. Or if you are lucky, you can find some of it buried in millions of links concerning illegal immigrants.. The only thing I see you doing is you just trying to find a way to ignore the problems or to simply excuse or dismiss the problems.

QuoteI wasn't tossing the race card at all, I was tossing the "unjust laws should be changed" card into the mix, but if you want to get all racist on my ass then go ahead. The other point is, "just because it's illegal, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong." But go ahead and use my example of "people peaceably being civilly disobedient in order to change unjust laws"

Again these Federal laws are not unjust laws, and these illegal immigrants have no right to be here to demand any laws be change or even legislated. And committing Fraud, ID theft, or Federal crimes is not an act of civility. Expecting others to pay for your life is not civility, it's selfish arrogance.. Hence, you actually think the laws that protect our Identities, and lives are some how magically unjust? What a load of crap that is!.

Quoteinto something racial that you get offended by. Go ahead, try to drop this example showing you that your absolutes are irrational. That by the way, is another dishonest argument tactic.

There should have been no racial context or unintended context to begin with.. When you start tossing things like the KKK, Nazis, ectra around, you are essentially playing the card.. I suggest you refrain from doing so! Because even though I am Brazilian, There are other people of other races that don't need to hear that garbage.

QuoteI'm just providing an equal statement, supported by equal evidence, being equally offensive to the statement you made. So you accept my statement as "fact" like you want us to accept your statement. We both get to play by the same rules. If you make baseless assertions and state that they're "facts", then I get to as well and you have no way of disregarding my statements without applying the same rules to your own statements (thereby you refuting yourself).

Not even remotely close to an equal statement.. Nothing I have stated is baseless assertion, I know much of this from my own circles of friends, and the fact that I have made the effort to actually find out what really goes on..

QuoteGood job, now you just need to provide some kind of evidence for your statement that the majority have SSN's, or just say that's it's made up.

And what SSN's do you suppose illegal immigrants are using? Legal ones :/

QuoteI'm sure you could just find thousands of random links that have nothing to do with the topic at hand... but that's not what I'm asking for. This thing about posting random links that provide hardly any specifics at all (unfounded or not), doesn't help you at all and it's extremely rude.

Like I said, you will simply dismiss any information I point to.. And those links were simply the first few that came up in the search engine.. And sorry, they get much of that information from law enforcement LOL.. Much of the statistics you find on these gangs come from the arrests of undocumented foreigners. The only consensus you really need to know is how many are sitting in our prisons..

Here are some old statistics
illegals in prison
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/NIFCJS.PDF (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/NIFCJS.PDF)
But what's really interesting is that even the 2009 and 2010 reports conveniently removed this category from their reports..

Example of Educational costs:
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... _port.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/illegal_immigrants_burden_port.html)


Illegal Immigrant Figures and Info from Minnesota, The state where my parents live.
http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/ ... f%2026.pdf (http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/Administration/Report_The_Impact_of_Illegal_Immigration_on_Minnesota_120805035315_Illegal%20Immigration%20Brief%2026.pdf)

Lets play the ID theft Example:
[youtube:3tjgtrsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HKnnYLmcBI[/youtube:3tjgtrsw]

Oh how about sold SSN's for a 100 bucks.. Children's ID's

Oh hell, lets give a Stolen ID theft case example:

Oh let's watch a real investigation:
[youtube:3tjgtrsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZ6U3vTg3A[/youtube:3tjgtrsw]

QuoteThe article you cited said nothing of free college. It stated some financial aid, but not free college. Just call it what it is, some financial support and I don't have a problem with not supporting an illegal immigrants pursuit of higher education, but I wouldn't say it's free when it's not.

There are loop holes, and no illegal immigrant should get any kind of state intuition, grants, ectra.. The following is just a first search example. And it includes scholarships.. That's right, I'm once again footing the bill for an illegals education..

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/13 ... etail.html (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/13687335/detail.html)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 13695.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6913695.html)

B: No, B = no free ride to illegal immigrants!

C: These are free clinics for legal citizens paid by legal citizens.. This is only possible by local state funding! These free clinics are not there for illegal immigrants to leech from or use as their own private hospitals when the poor legal people in this country need those clinics!.. it's like stealing candy from a baby. They don't belong here, and they shouldn't even be in these clinics costing us money, and taking up resources that belong to the legal citizen!

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "i_am_i"I'll agree that there shouldn't be any illegal immigrants here. My reasoning for this is that if there were no illegal immigrants here that would mean that our boarders are secure, and these days that is really, really important. We're fighting this bogus war on terrorism in the middle east and yet at the same time anyone with the wherewithal or determination can get into this country and move about undetected. Now that's just just plain stupid.

Meanwhile there are a hell of a lot of illegal immigrants already here. For all I know the man who takes care of my yard and the woman who cleans my house, both hard-working Mexicans with families, are here illegally. Now these are people I trust and respect, they're almost a part of the family and they are certainly my friends. I hate the idea of them being harshly dealt with.

Really, I just don't know what else to say, except that it's wrong to make sweeping generalizations about human beings. If we can all calm down and try to approach this from a position of basic respect for humanity then we'll be in a much better position to deal with this problem, in my opinion.

Well put.

This is by far more rational. However, I have never claimed illegals are evil people, I am clearly stating that nobody is above reproach, or prosecution when they commit a crime.. And especially Federal crimes that deal with fraud, and ID theft.. Sorry, but that is how the cookie crumbles.. They made these choices, and I don't have any sympathy for them if they end up paying for those choices.. This is something that needs to be harshly dealt with. Otherwise you are looking at an endless cycle. It's like the Government bailout fiasco, where I was correct that once the banks got a bailout that the auto industry would beg for one..At some point you have to say NO MORE!.. And whos' SSN are these illegals using that work for you? Who's lives are they potentially destroying? Who's paying for them when they get ill or go to the hospital should they get hit by a car? Who's paying for their education? Who pays for it if they hit someone with a car?  Sorry, I don't place trust in people like this regardless of how nice they seem to be.  My parents came here legally, and they are more insulted by this than many natural born Americans are! Many illegals think they own the place, and act like they have every right to come here and freely take advantage of the American people and commit these federal crimes in order to do so. Not all feel this way, but many do!

If I had it my way, this is what I would do:

I would say give illegals 1 year to file for citizenship, and then cut everyone else off cold turkey and make it impossible to have illegals get jobs, open bank accounts, or use a fake or stolen SSN. And then Tax those that do file to pay for it all! And make them do 10 years with 10 hours a week of community service for free to pay for their Federal Crimes.. Perhaps less for fictitious SSN' users. And this would be like slapping them on the wrist.. And any illegal caught there after should be sentenced to 5 years community service while in jail so he, or she can pay for their own deportation, legal fees, ect..

Like I said about software piracy, if you want to stop it, bust everyone! You then make them do community service for free so they can understand what it means to work for free.. Just imagine how clean our streets would be

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteJust calling them facts, doesn't make them facts. And like I said, don't shift your burden of proof off onto the people your talking to, when you make a positive claim, you bring the evidence.

No they are fact because I have done my own research to know very well that they are indeed pretty damn accurate. Hence, the specifics you are looking for is not going to be readily available on the internet and requires you to actually get off your tuff and makes some phone calls. I didn't shift the burden of proof on you, I told you how you can acquire the evidence yourself.. Don't get upset because you are to lazy to face reality..

Really, I'm too lazy do you your work for you? Right.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Your argument is like I can't prove to you that a building was built without giving you the blue prints to which you can't access online.. You have to go to local state government to get them.. And most of your arguments really show how disconnected you are to what really goes on in this country.

No, my argument is like your being like the religious logic dude about the baseball:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgodlesspaladin.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F09%2Flogic.jpg&hash=80b95a5a7ca4ccb0bd18cc0683661d1e688ca557)

If you have the evidence, then provide it. Anything else is shifting the burden of proof.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteHere it is again: if you make a claim, you support it. How about this: "illegal immigrants increase the standard of living for the middle class, if you want proof then do the research."

So do prison inmates that do community service. Your argument here is entirely irrelevant, and the Legal citizens and immigrants do that as well... You may as well try and make the argument that someone who was a firefighter to whom commits a federal crime of ID theft should magically set free with impunity to any charges or accountability for his crimes. That is how silly your argument is. Damn, we may as well make fraud and ID theft legal because someone might otherwise be contributing by making us burgers as Mc Donald's or working on a cure for aids... Absolutely ridiculous argument, and you make that argument as if Legal citizens can't possibly increase their own standards of living without illegal immigrants..

I've made no such argument, I've only asked that you provide your evidence and pointed out your fallacies and dishonesty. This example here is showing you at least one reason why we have a burden of proof for honest debates. If you telling me to provide your evidence for you in order to see the evidence for your claims is acceptable to you, then you must also take my argument telling you that you need to provide my evidence for my claims. You can't tell me to provide your evidence for you and have me provide my evidence for me and have an honest discussion. So how do you want to play it? We provide evidence for our claims or just tell the other person to provide the evidence for our claims?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteIf you're not providing evidence for your speculations and call them "facts" then you're being dishonest. If you say that the responsibility for providing evidence for your claims is on the people questioning you, that's dishonest. If you're stating that those who don't see the world how you see it are just ignoring the issues, then you're being dishonest.

Wrong, you simply just assume any evidence provided is magically false without even attempting contact the places I told you where you can get such information from.. And the funny part is, you know I'm right, and I know I am right because I have contacted, and discussed these things with my local government offices, INS, IRS, School boards, and police departments.. I actually go to town meetings ectra.. And it doesn't take much effort to call these places in California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Boston, or Florida to where these problems are at their worst.

If you "know" you're right and "I know you're right," then what evidence do you have to support your rightness.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote

Quote from: "TheJackel"This is irrelevant because the focus was never on just violent crimes.. And, these only add to the pile of crimes listed.. Nor does your argument here excuse any crime committed.

So no one is able to talk anything other than you want to talk about? That's kind of disingenuous if you will only talk about the points you want to cover.

What? Nobody stated you couldn't.. Hence, I am looking at the big picture or the whole picture and not just one segment of it.. You on the other hand just want to continue to make counter arguments to excuse the illegality of illegal immigrants and the Federal crimes they commit.. You essentially slap those who come here legally in the face, and those who make a genuine effort to earn their citizen ship without committing Fraud, or federal crimes. And the funny thing is, legal immigrants can't stand illegal immigrants for the very same reasons, and that is because they too have to put up with ID theft, and pay for these fence jumpers looking to receive a free hand out on the backs of everyone else..

You said "This is irrelevant because the focus was never on just violent crimes." Normally this is a tactic to just disregard a point that can't be logically justified at the same time as keeping your conclusion. Just judging by your complete refusal to provide any support for your argument while at the same time claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is "too lazy" to provide your evidence for you, is just ignoring the evidence or just not as awesome as you, is good reason to suspect that that is your intention. My assumption is further supported by you not addressing my point, but going around it to some other point I didn't even make.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI was pointing out that you're statement was irrational. Now instead of listening to what I said, you're putting words into my mouth, creating a straw man and using dishonest argument tactics. Just stop and be honest.

Ahh the back peddle, and then the claim to irrationality to cover that up. Seriously, I am hardly being irrational vs being blunt. And I have no idea where you get the notion that my argument on legality, and federal crime has anything to do with creating straw man arguments, or dishonest tactics.  My argument is pretty sound when it comes to the legality of this issue, and why your are trying to argue yourself around legality with circular arguments to magically give a free pass to federal crimes, ID theft, credit fraud, and employment fraud.. The only one creating straw man arguments is you at this point.

Really? You don't see how you're creating straw mans? Because you're telling me I said or mean something other than what I said and arguing against your made up version of my argument instead of my argument. Seriously? And you think you're hardly being irrational?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteWow, you never provide evidence for your claims, and keep asking everyone else to do the work for you.

Every single illegal immigrant is empirical evidence of those claims.. They all have either false documents, ID's, SSN's, stolen SSN's, Purchased SSN's, or Ficticious SSN's.. They all have committed Tax fraud, credit fraud, employment fraud, or a Federal crime.. They are all here illegally... End of Story! Hence, if they were legal they wouldn't be illegal would they?.. It only takes commonsense to even understand this, and what the implications and consequences are, and you simply expect America to foot the bill and suck it up!  Sorry but the silver spoon needs to be tossed in the trashcan. Arizona is doing the right thing, to slowly take away the jobs, schooling, anker baby, or any other means to which illegals take advantage of.. Once that is all taken away, we won't have to worry about this argument anymore because if there isn't anything here for them, they simply won't come here illegally anymore. The buck has to stop somewhere! And that beats having to put troops at the border.

Once again; just because it's a law, doesn't make it a just law.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteHow am I playing circular games when I've made just one reply post to you? You're the one who made an absolute statement PERIOD! NO EXCUSES!. Now you're adjusting your absolute statement because I pointed it out, good job, but maybe you shouldn't have made the absolute statement in the first place.

Trying to infuse the Hitler or Nazi fascists argument into the mix is playing circular games, and is entirely dishonest. And my absolute statement was always directed at illegal aliens jumping to borders to come here illegally by intention and had nothing to do with random accidents or extenuating circumstances, and you know it. Thus, you are playing circular arguments.

Trying to infuse that anyone who disagrees with you supports "6) Advocating for illegal aliens is like advocating illegal activity, credit fraud, tax fraud, employment fraud, health care fraud, federal crime, taxpayers should foot the bill for these peoples live ectra.." is the same thing, that was my point. Either you accept my statement as equally valid and true as yours, or drop both our statements for the same reason.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteYou're going to have to explain how the census counts as voting and manipulating the Government, not just state it.

QuoteOnce again you're trying to shift the burden of proof onto other people for your claims. Without even answering (even with just speculation), how the census counts as voting and manipulating the Government.

Again you are wrong.. You reject any information I do provide, and you don't bother to google any information to which is contrary to your argument, or bother to follow through with the options of actually researching it yourself. I am not shifting the burden of proof, I am advocating that you get off your butt and make some simple calls.. You want to know how the IRS, INS, or the Census Bureau get their facts and statistics, you need to contact them!

Here, I will help you get started by directing you to the Census Bureau Website, with 10 pages of PDF documents on illegal immigrants.. And what you can't find on their site, you can call them!

http://search.census.gov/search?q=illeg ... s&access=p (http://search.census.gov/search?q=illegal+immigrant&spell=1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=census&access=p)

Ok so by your logic it's:
Step 1: Illegal immigrants use the census
Step 2: ...
Step 3: Manipulation of our government

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI didn't ignore the links, I wasted time reading them and researching them. If the links don't support what you're saying when you link them, then it's your fault.

Ahh, actually they do.. They only way you get multi-million undocumented votes, SSN's, ectra is via illegal aliens.. All illegal aliens have committed fraud, and federal crimes. Sorry, but you need to deal with that. Perhaps you also need to visit the local ER, or Hospital in Arizona, or California to where illegal aliens go and get free health care.. You aren't going to find all the empirical evidence on the internet.. Your basic argument is deny it all while knowing what I am telling you is not incorrect. Thus the basic points are as follows:

1) 100% are all illegal
2) 100% are all undocumented
3) 100% all either have ficticious SSN's, stolen SSN's, or purchased SSN's
4) Illegal aliens do in fact VOTE!
5) 100% all have committed employment fraud
6) 100% all have committed tax fraud
7) 100% all have committed a Federal Crime
8) 100% all have cost us taxpayers money jumping the fence
9) Thousands commit further crime, and thousands are in our prison system
10) Illegal immigrant Gangs pose a big problem, and an ever increasing problem
11) 100% have all committed credit fraud (just by using fake ID's or SSN's to open bank accounts, or to even have cable TV)
13) Every American that has their ID stolen by an illegal immigrant goes through hell trying to rectify it, and it costs them money, time, and stress.. Many have their entire credit history destroyed and end up paying for it.  
14) all of these are valid reasons to deport, make it absolutely illegal to hire them, or take away any benefits they could possibly capitalize on by levying hefty fines on businesses, banks, or schools for having them.. These should receive benefits for having legal immigrants to give incentives to not just the schools, banks, and businesses, but to legal immigrants that come here through the proper channels..

1 and 2: Wow, 100% of illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants? That's so useful in your argument.
3: You stated earlier it was the majority, and in the same post said 100%, then you said the majority is correct and now we're back to 100%? Can you keep your baseless assertions straight? Again, which is it: the majority or 100%? Let's keep it straight this time.
4: I'm sure that at least a few do, maybe even all of them, however in order for me to be concerned with this I need to know how big the problem is, I.E.: how many are voting?
5 and 6: I find it hard to believe 100% have committed employment and tax fraud, how can you be so sure that every illegal immigrant works for money?
7: Yes read my response to 1 and 2. While I think the naturalization process needs a major overhaul, I do think they should pay for their crimes because just getting away with it doesn't do well enough to bring the attention to the problem at hand. They should jump the fence, get arrested and explain why they jumped the fence instead of going through the immigration process... which is why I brought up MLK Jr.. Not to throw in the race card, but because that is a very effective strategy to bringing about change to an unjust system: Break an unjust law, then pay for it so people notice how unjust the laws are.
8: Still, the 100% thing doesn't really make sense, I doubt anyone can prove that every single illegal immigrant costs us money, unless it's just a cost applied to all of them, like condiments in a restaurant: the restaurant pays for them for everyone, whether everyone uses them or not.
9 and 10: I can agree with that baseless estimate, however I would like to see some solid facts on it to see if it's more important than other things.
11: Still gonna have a lot to prove to be sure that every single illegal immigrant has done these things.
13: Same for people who get their Id's stolen by people in other countries and U.S. citizens, I'm not arguing whether it's a bad thing or not, I'm trying to see whether illegal immigrants stealing Id's is more prevalent than U.S. citizens or other countries doing it to see where I should be more concerned. If not many illegal immigrants are doing it then why focus on them when there is a bigger problem with U.S. citizens doing it or vice versa.
14: Most of these reasons are not valid, however I do think that there should be no employment or schooling for illegal aliens.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteIt's not a circular game it's the standard of evidence. I'd really have no problem if you said that your conclusions are just mere speculation and that you don't have any reasonable evidence to back it up and other people may come to a different conclusion based on the little evidence you provided. Really, just stop saying that people that disagree with your baseless assertions are ignoring the evidence, when you're not providing any.k

Wrong because I have all those sources to back me up! Hence, I have called and contacted many of these places, and I have yet to have one not concur to my overall assessment.. If you want to just disagree with me that is up to you, but if you really want to challenge me, I dare you to even call the INS, or just one of California's main school districts ectra.. Hell, call the IRS on figures for the last election in regards to this issue.. Like I said, the problem with your argument is that the evidence you so specifically want can only be accessed by contacting them. Or if you are lucky, you can find some of it buried in millions of links concerning illegal immigrants.. The only thing I see you doing is you just trying to find a way to ignore the problems or to simply excuse or dismiss the problems.

Wrong, if you contacted them and got the evidence then you have the evidence and can produce it.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI wasn't tossing the race card at all, I was tossing the "unjust laws should be changed" card into the mix, but if you want to get all racist on my ass then go ahead. The other point is, "just because it's illegal, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong." But go ahead and use my example of "people peaceably being civilly disobedient in order to change unjust laws"

Again these Federal laws are not unjust laws, and these illegal immigrants have no right to be here to demand any laws be change or even legislated. And committing Fraud, ID theft, or Federal crimes is not an act of civility. Expecting others to pay for your life is not civility, it's selfish arrogance.. Hence, you actually think the laws that protect our Identities, and lives are some how magically unjust? What a load of crap that is!.

The load of crap is that I don't think any of that, and this is an example of you straw manning my argument.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quoteinto something racial that you get offended by. Go ahead, try to drop this example showing you that your absolutes are irrational. That by the way, is another dishonest argument tactic.

There should have been no racial context or unintended context to begin with.. When you start tossing things like the KKK, Nazis, ectra around, you are essentially playing the card.. I suggest you refrain from doing so! Because even though I am Brazilian, There are other people of other races that don't need to hear that garbage.

I was not playing the race card at all, just showing you that your blanket statement of "you disagree with me so you support X" is irrational. So either you accept my statement or drop both yours and mine.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI'm just providing an equal statement, supported by equal evidence, being equally offensive to the statement you made. So you accept my statement as "fact" like you want us to accept your statement. We both get to play by the same rules. If you make baseless assertions and state that they're "facts", then I get to as well and you have no way of disregarding my statements without applying the same rules to your own statements (thereby you refuting yourself).

Not even remotely close to an equal statement.. Nothing I have stated is baseless assertion, I know much of this from my own circles of friends, and the fact that I have made the effort to actually find out what really goes on..

If nothing you've stated is a baseless assertion, then provide the basis for them.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteGood job, now you just need to provide some kind of evidence for your statement that the majority have SSN's, or just say that's it's made up.

And what SSN's do you suppose illegal immigrants are using? Legal ones :/

Not all of them need SSN's. In fact only ones that need to get certain jobs need SSN's, while getting paid under the table doesn't require any false identity. So once again, provide the evidence for the majority steal SSN's (or 100% steal SSN's whichever you finally decide on), or just admit that it's just speculation or a hunch.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI'm sure you could just find thousands of random links that have nothing to do with the topic at hand... but that's not what I'm asking for. This thing about posting random links that provide hardly any specifics at all (unfounded or not), doesn't help you at all and it's extremely rude.

Like I said, you will simply dismiss any information I point to.. And those links were simply the first few that came up in the search engine.. And sorry, they get much of that information from law enforcement LOL.. Much of the statistics you find on these gangs come from the arrests of undocumented foreigners. The only consensus you really need to know is how many are sitting in our prisons..

Here are some old statistics
illegals in prison
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/NIFCJS.PDF (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/NIFCJS.PDF)
But what's really interesting is that even the 2009 and 2010 reports conveniently removed this category from their reports..

Example of Educational costs:
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... _port.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/illegal_immigrants_burden_port.html)


Illegal Immigrant Figures and Info from Minnesota, The state where my parents live.
http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/ ... f%2026.pdf (http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/Administration/Report_The_Impact_of_Illegal_Immigration_on_Minnesota_120805035315_Illegal%20Immigration%20Brief%2026.pdf)

Lets play the ID theft Example:
[youtube:3kvl265d]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HKnnYLmcBI[/youtube:3kvl265d]

Oh how about sold SSN's for a 100 bucks.. Children's ID's

Oh hell, lets give a Stolen ID theft case example:

Oh let's watch a real investigation:
[youtube:3kvl265d]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZ6U3vTg3A[/youtube:3kvl265d]

I didn't just dismiss them offhand, I responded to why I dismissed them. Did you not notice my criticisms of why I dismissed them? Do you even read what I type or do you just have an argument with someone else while pretending to respond to me?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteThe article you cited said nothing of free college. It stated some financial aid, but not free college. Just call it what it is, some financial support and I don't have a problem with not supporting an illegal immigrants pursuit of higher education, but I wouldn't say it's free when it's not.

There are loop holes, and no illegal immigrant should get any kind of state intuition, grants, ectra.. The following is just a first search example. And it includes scholarships.. That's right, I'm once again footing the bill for an illegals education..

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/13 ... etail.html (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/13687335/detail.html)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 13695.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6913695.html)

B: No, B = no free ride to illegal immigrants!

C: These are free clinics for legal citizens paid by legal citizens.. This is only possible by local state funding! These free clinics are not there for illegal immigrants to leech from or use as their own private hospitals when the poor legal people in this country need those clinics!.. it's like stealing candy from a baby. They don't belong here, and they shouldn't even be in these clinics costing us money, and taking up resources that belong to the legal citizen!

Again, I don't disagree that these services should not be provided to illegal immigrants, but how much damage is it doing?

Here's an example: Music companies spent trillions of dollars on copy protection technology to prevent pirating of their Intellectual Property (IP), when each thing they came up with was cracked within a few days of being released. Additionally, even if the anti-piracy technology were 100% successful, it wouldn't overcome the cost of the anti-piracy technology, so they'd still be losing money. It would be a much better business plan to go with the technology while charging a fee than to try to stop it entirely... which has shown to be effective with iTunes and other paid downloading services. Now to relate the example: If preventing the illegal immigrants from using the paid services costs tax payers more than just letting them use the service then why should we try to stop the problem. However if we can prevent it to save tax payers money then we should: I just want to see the data so that I can determine the overall cost of fixing the problem vs. how much the problem is costing. You claim you know this and there is evidence for it, just provide the evidence.

Davin,

You have some points in regards to some evidence I can't provide yes, However your entire argument is based on what appears to be ignoring that the problems even exist because I can't physically show you this evidence online.. Listen I'm Brazilian, and let me tell ya, you really have no clue as to what's going on, or how bad it really is, Especially here in Boston. Though you can state many might get paid under the table, but that is tax evasion and fraud, as well as employment fraud by both parties, and that = Federal Crime.. However, you have made some interesting points above to where there is obviously margins of error, and giving that no exact info can be found without actually doing your own investigations does not magically make any of these problems not a problem. And so far your only answer is to agree they shouldn't be here, while seemingly trying to argue that we should do absolutely nothing to stop it. We ought to just toss our hands in the air and just hand over the entire United States over to the illegal immigrants, ID's, JOBS, and all.. Under your logic, China could just send several hundred million of their civilians over here on ships and just take over without even having to use a gun or weapon.

So since I can't provide any empirical physical evidence the following doesn't happen or is never committed by illegal aliens because I can't hand it over to you on the internet:

Federal Crime
Tax evasion
Employment fraud
ID Theft
Violent Crimes
Gang Violence
Voting in our elections
having fake, stolen, or purchased SSN's
False ID's
False or forged documents (which is a crime to)
Leech off the US taxpayer
Credit fraud
Open accounts in other peoples names
Utility bills under other peoples names
Ruin other peoples lives
Kidnapping to which is prolific in the border states
Use the US taxpayer for free education and health care
Commit many other non-violent crimes

So to settle your Religious debate argument here of the "I have Baseball": Tell me, do illegal aliens in fact commit any of the above?  If you say no, evidence please.. If you say yes, evidence please.. In either case you can not provide 100% proof that either is true over the internet.. Even videos can simply be dismissed as a lie ecta.. Nothing you can provide either way on this issue could be considered empirical because it can all simply be denied... So how do we figure and validate these things? Well, it's not on the internet is it.. However, you can't claim this as such a debate because the problem actually exists.. What you are basically doing is trying to give wiggle room to making illegal legal..  They are not above reproach!

When you can provide me evidence that this isn't a problem that doesn't need to be addressed you let me know.. Because your own inability to go out there and really figure what is going on shows that you are seemingly careless that illegal immigrants are here, and what they may or may not be doing.. And trust me, they play for your sympathies, and even manipulate it like fiddle. Much of your arguments really show your lack of understanding of the illegal subculture.  

Sorry, I would rather pay the bill to deport them all and take away every possible means of survival they could have here away from them in order to fix the problem than just sit and watch them ransack this Nation, or the people who live here legally.. Let me tell ya, a Brazilian illegal here in Revere MA will take anything they can get from you LOL.  And we know all to well what the Latino Mexican's are up to here in Revere as well.. Sadly ICE and the INS are nearly non-existent here in BOSTON :/ And I know these things through our subculture and not just some internet statistic or link you like to just dismiss.

And Granted, I'm pretty sure you will constitute this as no-evidence.. So I will merely concede that nothing I can provide will ever be evidence to you.. So yeah, live in lala land, ignore the problem and see where that goes.  

I've noticed all the people who seem to have problems with illegal immigrants are those who were fortunate enough to have been born in the US.  I get the feeling some people might feel differently if it were one of their parents or relatives facing deportation.  I find the lack of compassion a little disheartening.

America was founded by immigrants.  Immigrants who stole from the natives, and killed them.  Unless you happen to be a member of one of the Native American tribes that have always been here, you too are an immigrant.  I have a hard time saying that anyone who wants to be here shouldn't be given that opportunity.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I've noticed all the people who seem to have problems with illegal immigrants are those who were fortunate enough to have been born in the US.  I get the feeling some people might feel differently if it were one of their parents or relatives facing deportation.  I find the lack of compassion a little disheartening.

Though I was fortunate enough to be Born in Brazil, I was also fortunate enough to have been brought over legally!.. And many of these illegals are the type of people that do nothing to fight and change things in their own countries of origin.. It's easier to jump the fence and take advantage, and manipulate a system that easily allows you to without giving a rats ass who pays for it, or who you may hurt in the process.. It's selfish arrogance.. Now we can't blame the children, but it's pretty sick that the parents use the children to manipulate and abuse the law, and they system to get what they will selfishly take without even so much as asking, or applying through the legal channels!.. Sorry, I have no sympathy when many of their actions mindlessly effect the lives of other people..  Hence, when is it charity when one simply demands and takes it without it being kindly given? Where is the moral civility, and respect that we don't leech off the back of others, or destroy other peoples lives just so we can better our own lives?.

QuoteAmerica was founded by immigrants.  Immigrants who stole from the natives, and killed them.  Unless you happen to be a member of one of the Native American tribes that have always been here, you too are an immigrant.  I have a hard time saying that anyone who wants to be here shouldn't be given that opportunity.

Yes, America was founded by immigrants, and yes these immigrants killed natives.. However, once again you can't change history, or blame the children or future generations for the wrongs to which their parents commit. And btw, 95% of the natives were killed by disease and not by fighting.. And this little immigrant argument and war argument can be said to be true throughout human history in just about any given location at some time or another.. So what is it that needs to be done here? When do you stop as a human species from partaking in such activities?.. We can list excuses all day long and get no-where.. And the problem isn't immigration, it's illegal immigration and the problems it causes!.. In this day an age, there is no excuse not to go through legal channels and wait your turn.. My parents waited 9 years before they were allowed to immigrate here!  

The whole point of legal immigration is to pull your own weight without causing any problems, breaking any laws, or selfishly taking and abusing a system that is not there for you to take and abuse!.. Those who generally really do care about becoming an American Citizen are those who come here Legally.. Illegals think they are above reproach when it comes to breaking federal laws and don't feel like they should have to abide by these laws like everyone else does..

It's like, Oh I'm sorry, I destroyed your daughters credit history and made her pay for my wife's pregnancy ectr.. Oh, and you will be paying for babies education to! Thanks!. Sorry to hear that your daughter can't afford college, or can't get a job to pay for it, but thanks for the in state tuition and scholarships. Oh, and you don't mind if we vote do you? . People like this deserve to get booted, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Fix these problems by coming here legally and I will be more than happy to see you here!..

No shit the natives were killed by disease-because after immigrants stole their land, they purposefully gave them blankets infested with small pox.  I never said anything about fighting, did I?

It's fortunate you arrived her via legal channels.  However, when you're fleeing for your life, maybe you don't have 9 years to just hang around and wait for them to deny your claims for a visa or asylum.  I'm not endorsing illegal activities by immigrants, but immigrants aren't entirely to blame.  Americans are more than willing to illegally employ these people, to abuse them and take advantage of them because they know they can get away with it.  If no one was willing to employ illegal immigrants, there would be less incentive for them to come here.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Here in Boston I can buy a Green Card for 50 bucks, and a Fake ID for 300. Most of the Brazilian illegals in my hood use purchased SSN's and cards for nothing more than 60-120 bucks.

You guys are getting ripped off.  The prices on Figueroa in LA are, respectively, 30, 100, and 30-50.

You really should talk to your union rep.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Here in Boston I can buy a Green Card for 50 bucks, and a Fake ID for 300. Most of the Brazilian illegals in my hood use purchased SSN's and cards for nothing more than 60-120 bucks.

You guys are getting ripped off.  The prices on Figueroa in LA are, respectively, 30, 100, and 30-50.

You really should talk to your union rep.

I think I love you.  

Quote from: "philosoraptor"No shit the natives were killed by disease-because after immigrants stole their land, they purposefully gave them blankets infested with small pox.  I never said anything about fighting, did I?

Wtf? LOL.. I didn't realize they had small pox sweat shops. American's technically don't own land, they pay property taxes and it can be taken from them, or you should the government seek to take it..If you have a house, or have property, Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours. you are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session) the government can take your property (often referred to as eminent domain or condemnation)

Example:

Wiki:
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5â€"4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In September 2009, the land where Susette Kelo's home had once stood was an empty lot, and the promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized.

So technically you can't even claim that the people living here actually own any land.... And much of the land is sold to foreign entities, or governments and businesses.. The people no longer actually own it, so your argument is irrelevant, especially considering how many different nationalities live here now. So your American Indian slaughter nonsense can't even be applicable as a valid argument..  

QuoteIt's fortunate you arrived her via legal channels.  However, when you're fleeing for your life, maybe you don't have 9 years to just hang around and wait for them to deny your claims for a visa or asylum.

We are not the worlds refugee camp, and silver spoon. perhaps they need to learn how to fight and change the future of their country rather than bringing those problems here. Charity that is taken is not Charity at all, but Charity stolen from others to which is meant to be given to.. And I have stated before, I don't have a problem with granting visa's and asylums to those who it can be applicable to within reason.. Hence, we fail to realize population growth is also destroying this country and it's beautiful lands.. Sorry, But I don't want to see the entire United States turned into an Urban concrete Jungle with billions of people here.. We can't save the world, nor can we ingest every single poor, or persecuted soul out there!.. Personally I think there are already too many people in this Country, and you can't even walk 5 feet without passing up human trash.. Nearly half of the 10,000 lakes in MIN are polluted. I wouldn't even recommend drinking any of the water from the great lakes.  So what should America do? Go around a import every possible person seeking to come here?

QuoteI'm not endorsing illegal activities by immigrants, but immigrants aren't entirely to blame.

For their illegal activities? They most certainly are entirely to blame! I guess they are above not only reproach but personal responsibility as well?

QuoteAmericans are more than willing to illegally employ these people, to abuse them and take advantage of them because they know they can get away with it.  If no one was willing to employ illegal immigrants, there would be less incentive for them to come here.

Speak for yourself.. I'm more than willing to report (anonymously, for safety reasons) them and deport them .. And of course people love to hire them, it's cheap labor, and paying under the table is a tax evading relief fund for both parties.. Same kind of nonsense is why your jobs got shipped overseas due buying cheap imported slave labor products to which created the demand and competitive market for it.  Now, everyone blames the GOV and CORPS because they can't handle the fact that they don't have any concept of what Capitalism is, or why Demand is the single most powerful element that controls the entire world market and where the Jobs are.. The second being tariffs, or China manipulating their currency.. Yet, I keep telling people to buy products made with their own labor to which creates the demand that they hire you in order to sell to you..

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Here in Boston I can buy a Green Card for 50 bucks, and a Fake ID for 300. Most of the Brazilian illegals in my hood use purchased SSN's and cards for nothing more than 60-120 bucks.

You guys are getting ripped off.  The prices on Figueroa in LA are, respectively, 30, 100, and 30-50.

You really should talk to your union rep.

I think I love you.   :P Either that, or you're messing with me ..

QuoteAmerican's technically don't own land, they pay property taxes and it can be taken from you should the government seek to take it.. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours. you are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session) the government can take your property (often referred to as eminent domain or condemnation)

Uh, that's great.  But what does it have to do with illegal immigrants?  I was talking about the immigrants who came here before the existence of the laws regarding the ownership of property, so this seems kind of irrelevant to that.

QuoteWe are not the worlds refugee camp, and silver spoon. perhaps learn how to fight and change the future of your country rather than bringing those problems here.

You assume that all people don't do these things.  Some of them do.  I'm not wholly aware of the political climate in Brazil, but many people who immigrate are coming from places where dissent against the government or the expression of a negative opinion of politics could get you killed.  Are you suggesting these people be martyrs?  Because I don't see what, if anything, this accomplishes.

QuoteWe can't save the world, nor can we ingest every single poor, or persecuted soul out there!

Oh, but we do try to save the world, by invading other countries and starting wars that kill innocent people on both sides under the guise that we're fighting terrorism.  We contribute to making these places unsafe for the people who live there, because America has to act as the world's police.  I can't blame anyone for wanting to escape that.  Who said anything about ingesting (seriously, weird word choice) EVERY soul into America anyway?

QuoteSpeak for yourself.. I'm more than willing to report (anonymously, for safety reasons) them and deport them ..

That's great.  It also doesn't mean shit if YOU are willing to deport them when hundreds of businesses who employ illegal immigrants ARE NOT.  If you want to deport illegal immigrants, go work for the Arizona government.

QuoteNow, everyone blames the GOV and CORPS because they can't handle the fact that they don't have any concept of what Capitalism is, or why Demand is the single most powerful element that controls the entire world market and where the Jobs are..

Maybe you should take your own advice about speaking for yourself.  You can't possibly know what everyone thinks or who they blame.  I'm also willing to wager that there are many people here with a greater understanding of the complex workings of capitalism than yourself, so the patronizing tone you're taking is pretty offensive.  I'm not stupid, and neither are most of the people here.

And again, you DO live here legally.  Apparently, you take that for granted.  It's so easy to condemn immigrants and their actions and say they should just man up and either change their countries or immigrate legally, as if it's just that simple.  Armchair warrior is the term that comes to mind.  Nothing about your argument compels me.

Quote"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That is part of the inscription from the Statue of Liberty.  If illegal immigrants don't fall under that, than I don't know who does.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Davin,

You have some points in regards to some evidence I can't provide yes, However your entire argument is based on what appears to be ignoring that the problems even exist because I can't physically show you this evidence online.. Listen I'm Brazilian, and let me tell ya, you really have no clue as to what's going on, or how bad it really is, Especially here in Boston. Though you can state many might get paid under the table, but that is tax evasion and fraud, as well as employment fraud by both parties, and that = Federal Crime.. However, you have made some interesting points above to where there is obviously margins of error, and giving that no exact info can be found without actually doing your own investigations does not magically make any of these problems not a problem. And so far your only answer is to agree they shouldn't be here, while seemingly trying to argue that we should do absolutely nothing to stop it. We ought to just toss our hands in the air and just hand over the entire United States over to the illegal immigrants, ID's, JOBS, and all.. Under your logic, China could just send several hundred million of their civilians over here on ships and just take over without even having to use a gun or weapon.

I know you can't provide evidence, that is my point. Making claims that things are "facts" or people are burying their heads in the ground if they disagree with you when you haven't provided the evidence, is irrational. You continue to ignore what I've said and keep arguing against some imaginary person while pretending that person is me. Secondly you making irrational statements like "We ought to just toss our hands in the air and just hand over the entire United States over to the illegal immigrants, ID's, JOBS, and all.. Under your logic," which is not only not my logic but completely ridiculous. Why don't you address my points instead of these straw mans? I've said this before and I'll probably have to tell you again: I would have no problem if you just said you have no evidence and it's just your speculation about how bad the problem is and stop claiming the things you're saying are facts. That's it. You can keep professing all the bullshit you want, as long as you call it what it is: speculation.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So since I can't provide any empirical physical evidence the following doesn't happen or is never committed by illegal aliens because I can't hand it over to you on the internet:

Federal Crime
Tax evasion
Employment fraud
ID Theft
Violent Crimes
Gang Violence
Voting in our elections
having fake, stolen, or purchased SSN's
False ID's
False or forged documents (which is a crime to)
Leech off the US taxpayer
Credit fraud
Open accounts in other peoples names
Utility bills under other peoples names
Ruin other peoples lives
Kidnapping to which is prolific in the border states
Use the US taxpayer for free education and health care
Commit many other non-violent crimes

So to settle your Religious debate argument here of the "I have Baseball": Tell me, do illegal aliens in fact commit any of the above?  If you say no, evidence please.. If you say yes, evidence please.. In either case you can not provide 100% proof that either is true over the internet.. Even videos can simply be dismissed as a lie ecta.. Nothing you can provide either way on this issue could be considered empirical because it can all simply be denied... So how do we figure and validate these things? Well, it's not on the internet is it.. However, you can't claim this as such a debate because the problem actually exists.. What you are basically doing is trying to give wiggle room to making illegal legal..  They are not above reproach

I see, quiting before even giving it a good attempt at providing evidence. That doesn't settle the religious argument, it clearly demonstrates that you're on the illogical side of it: You made a claim, I asked you to prove it, then you told me to provide your evidence for you. No, that is not what I'm basically doing. Once again, if you want to have a rational discussion, you must discuss what I say and not something you just made up.

Quote from: "TheJackel"When you can provide me evidence that this isn't a problem that doesn't need to be addressed you let me know.. Because your own inability to go out there and really figure what is going on shows that you are seemingly careless that illegal immigrants are here, and what they may or may not be doing.. And trust me, they play for your sympathies, and even manipulate it like fiddle. Much of your arguments really show your lack of understanding of the illegal subculture.

Sorry, that's not the way a rational discussion has to happen, all I have to do is make sure that you claim is reasonable, I don't have to make one of my own.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Sorry, I would rather pay the bill to deport them all and take away every possible means of survival they could have here away from them in order to fix the problem than just sit and watch them ransack this Nation, or the people who live here legally.. Let me tell ya, a Brazilian illegal here in Revere MA will take anything they can get from you LOL.  And we know all to well what the Latino Mexican's are up to here in Revere as well.. Sadly ICE and the INS are nearly non-existent here in BOSTON :/ And I know these things through our subculture and not just some internet statistic or link you like to just dismiss.

There's lot's of evidence that works over the internet: it comes from reputable sources, it provides the data and the rational behind the conclusions. I don't care about how much you claim to know over the internet, I'm not going to take you as an authority just so that you can appeal to authority using yourself.

Quote from: "TheJackel"And Granted, I'm pretty sure you will constitute this as no-evidence.. So I will merely concede that nothing I can provide will ever be evidence to you.. So yeah, live in lala land, ignore the problem and see where that goes.  

There's lot's of evidence you could provide if it existed, so in the absence of evidence for your claim let's just call it speculation and you can stop claiming that people that don't align with your point of view are ignoring the "evidence" (which doesn't exist). And once again, discuss what I say and not something you just made up.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I've noticed all the people who seem to have problems with illegal immigrants are those who were fortunate enough to have been born in the US.  I get the feeling some people might feel differently if it were one of their parents or relatives facing deportation.  I find the lack of compassion a little disheartening.

America was founded by immigrants.  Immigrants who stole from the natives, and killed them.  Unless you happen to be a member of one of the Native American tribes that have always been here, you too are an immigrant.  I have a hard time saying that anyone who wants to be here shouldn't be given that opportunity.

While I've been reading this thread this same thought has been running through my mind. I didn't feel like voicing it as I'm not in the US. I'm glad a US citizen has articulated so well what I was thinking. From an outsiders view it does look rather like the first bunch in were happy to let anybody else in until they could build a fence with 'Keep Out' written on it.

The UK is having a lot of issues with people seeking a better life and coming here. It is in a way a great compliment to our country. It's when people are leaving that you need to worry that you're ding something wrong. The USA has masses of space and natural resources, it seems pointless to not accept that the people that have already made it there should not be granted citizenship. Let's face it many of them have risked their lives to get there. If one is born in a country what commitment have they made to that country? Bugger all really, until they are adults. Would one deport a person born in the USA because they were lazy? Of course not.

We've had a lot of Polish immigration over the last few years and they have put many Brits to shame with their attitude to hard work (Bring it on!). While my emotional investment is in my identification as British it really shouldn't be. Logically I should encourage anybody who wishes to add value by working to come to my country.

Sort of mixed and undefined feelings about this subject as you can probably tell from the above.

QuoteI know you can't provide evidence, that is my point. Making claims that things are "facts" or people are burying their heads in the ground if they disagree with you when you haven't provided the evidence, is irrational. You continue to ignore what I've said and keep arguing against some imaginary person while pretending that person is me. Secondly you making irrational statements like "We ought to just toss our hands in the air and just hand over the entire United States over to the illegal immigrants, ID's, JOBS, and all.. Under your logic," which is not only not my logic but completely ridiculous. Why don't you address my points instead of these straw mans? I've said this before and I'll probably have to tell you again: I would have no problem if you just said you have no evidence and it's just your speculation about how bad the problem is and stop claiming the things you're saying are facts. That's it. You can keep professing all the bullshit you want, as long as you call it what it is: speculation.

Again, I can't make an illegal immigrant with a fake ID magically crawl out of your damn computer monitor to give you the evidence you seek. People like you really need to be taken on the streets and shown the real world. I have evidence, It's called what I know and see in the REAL WORLD! This isn't something I can fax you kiddo!.. For Pete's sake, I gave sample videos of hundreds if not thousands you can randomly find on youtube or elsewhere. And exactly what evidence do you want presented eh? Seriously, wake the ___k up.. And I know what you have said, and why you have dismissed links ect. However, your dismissal is due to your lack of actual education of wtf is going on in my neighborhood, who's who, who to avoid, what gangs are involved in what activity, where do these people live, what's the demographic of my own neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods. What's being discussed at the Town meetings and school boards. Police are usually very talkative about whats going on in your neighborhood if you ask. And the social groups in general are usually self evident after a while.

QuoteThere's lot's of evidence you could provide if it existed, so in the absence of evidence for your claim let's just call it speculation and you can stop claiming that people that don't align with your point of view are ignoring the "evidence" (which doesn't exist). And once again, discuss what I say and not something you just made up.

Again the evidence I have can't simply be given to you over the internet.. Sorry but that is a fact you are going to have to deal with.. Thus, please prove your own fallacy here that "evidence doesn't exist"... Easy to claim from behind the keyboard and a computer screen.. And yep, you can certainly claim that anything I can provide you over the internet is "made up".. Hence why I conceded that fact that no matter what I post, provide, or show could be dismissed, denied, or simply stated as "made up"... Your argument is like claiming alcoholics can't be proven to kill people in car accidents over the internet because any evidence short of one's self being hit by a drunk driver can be dismissed as made up, staged, or non-empirical. And this is especially true over the internet without going out in the real world to witness it, ask questions, or call what-ever sources you might find to be reputable..

QuoteThe UK is having a lot of issues with people seeking a better life and coming here. It is in a way a great compliment to our country. It's when people are leaving that you need to worry that you're ding something wrong. The USA has masses of space and natural resources, it seems pointless to not accept that the people that have already made it there should not be granted citizenship.

I disagree because I don't care to see those spaces or resources vanish! You do realize America has and needs what little wild refuges there are left for I donno, the natural wild life! America is not a Land that should entirely be paved over because billions of people who might want to immigrate here legally, or illegally!.. Personally, 250+ million people already feels way over crowded.. America would become one massive polluted mess if it's population were to double..  People just expect us to tear up more land and make room for them?.. No, fix your own problems at home if you can't get here legally, or get an asylum..  Hence, have you ever been to Arizona and Texas?  Outside the city limits is like one highway junkyard and trash can after another.. Especially around the outskirts of Sun City Arizona where my Grand Father lives near the Air Force Base out there.

QuoteLet's face it many of them have risked their lives to get there. If one is born in a country what commitment have they made to that country? Bugger all really, until they are adults. Would one deport a person born in the USA because they were lazy? Of course not.

A free ride of taxpayers, free education, jobs, and a new life generally give people incentives to do such a thing.. Many families along the boarder in Mexico are drug subcultures, or crime oriented to make a living without any regard to those who they poison with their drugs.. They risk their lives too, for a better life.. But does that make what they do ok? NO it doesn't

QuoteWe've had a lot of Polish immigration over the last few years and they have put many Brits to shame with their attitude to hard work (Bring it on!). While my emotional investment is in my identification as British it really shouldn't be. Logically I should encourage anybody who wishes to add value by working to come to my country.

I've seen the opposite be true here as well as visa versa.. Work ethics are not what the problem is.

QuoteSort of mixed and undefined feelings about this subject as you can probably tell from the above.

They only need to fix the problem, and it matters to me not if they make them all citizens and make them pull their own weight or if they deport them.. One thing is for sure though, everyone must answer to the crimes they did commit, pay for what they cost the taxpayers, and pay for any damage they cause to anyone's Identities to which they may have ruined.. Accountability, and responsibility!  Lastly, they would definitely need to take away any possible illegal alien loop hole out of the system so they stop coming here illegally.

You ask for peoples help, you don't assume it and take it regardless of your position..

I was going to respond to the part of your last post where you said "America isn't a refugee camp" but I see you've edited that bit out.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I was going to respond to the part of your last post where you said "America isn't a refugee camp" but I see you've edited that bit out.

I edited it out because it's late and it didn't make sense considering illegals aren't displaced people.

QuoteUh, that's great.  But what does it have to do with illegal immigrants?  I was talking about the immigrants who came here before the existence of the laws regarding the ownership of property, so this seems kind of irrelevant to that.

It didn't, it was related to the American Indian argument about Americans stealing land. American's don't technically own land for his argument to even be relevant, much less the fact that Diversity of Nationality has since nullified that argument anyways.

QuoteYou assume that all people don't do these things.  Some of them do.  I'm not wholly aware of the political climate in Brazil, but many people who immigrate are coming from places where dissent against the government or the expression of a negative opinion of politics could get you killed.  Are you suggesting these people be martyrs?  Because I don't see what, if anything, this accomplishes.

I didn't assume people don't do those things.. The point is, America logically can't simply ingest everyone, or save everyone.. And I am suggesting that people that don't fight for their freedom even if it might get them killed will never change anything. Remember that when reflecting upon past wars where the people rose up to garnish their freedom from such corrupt governments..

QuoteOh, but we do try to save the world, by invading other countries and starting wars that kill innocent people on both sides under the guise that we're fighting terrorism.  We contribute to making these places unsafe for the people who live there, because America has to act as the world's police.  I can't blame anyone for wanting to escape that.  Who said anything about ingesting (seriously, weird word choice) EVERY soul into America anyway?

Proxy wars, Pretro-Dollar, Petro-Euro.. Americans seemingly have no control over our own government in this regard. I voted Green Party.. and 911 wasn't a dream thank you very much.

QuoteThat's great.  It also doesn't mean shit if YOU are willing to deport them when hundreds of businesses who employ illegal immigrants ARE NOT.  If you want to deport illegal immigrants, go work for the Arizona government.

OF course, cheap slave labor, and tax evasion is the new fun these days while ruining other peoples lives and taking their Jobs. Yeah, I would rather work for Arizona's Government than allow that back leeching take place.. And sorry, we are already pushing for that kind of legislation here in Boston ..

QuoteMaybe you should take your own advice about speaking for yourself.  You can't possibly know what everyone thinks or who they blame.  I'm also willing to wager that there are many people here with a greater understanding of the complex workings of capitalism than yourself, so the patronizing tone you're taking is pretty offensive.  I'm not stupid, and neither are most of the people here.

I do speak for myself thanks,I also just so happen to agree with other people in the country on this issue as you agree otherwise with the opposite side. And I try the best I can not to buy cheap foreign imports.. And I can't control the rest of the populous that sells themselves out to whom have taken me down with them. And you can feel free to show me anyone in the know of Capitalism that would even remotely argue that demand does not have the ultimate majority control over markets and jobs.. Sorry, but that's basic economics that everyone ought to know from grade school, otherwise yes, there will be others who will know more about the whole system than I do. Have I ever stated there wasn't?  And I'm not the only one here with the patronizing tone.. And I don't recall anyone calling you stupid, nor anyone else here as being stupid.  

QuoteAnd again, you DO live here legally.  Apparently, you take that for granted.  It's so easy to condemn immigrants and their actions and say they should just man up and either change their countries or immigrate legally, as if it's just that simple.  Armchair warrior is the term that comes to mind.  Nothing about your argument compels me.

They are not immigrants, they are illegal immigrants, and it's just that simple.. And yeah, law breakers, ID theft, ectr doesn't compel you, then go live in a place where there is nothing but Anarchy.. I guess only privileged people get to break laws, steal peoples ID's, ruin their Credit history, commit fraud.. Yeah I'm sure that's what the founding fathers meant by Liberty and "JUSTICE" for all. You can't have your cake and eat it to!

Quote"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

And your Point is? Where on the Statue does it say Federal crimes are ok to commit, or the illegal immigrants are above the Law? And where on that does that state illegal immigrants? To say give me your homeless does not state that illegals can come take what they want, break the laws, and be above reproach!.. Don't quote The statue of liberty in relation to illegal activity, fraud, and Identity theft ect. That's like saying we all should have the Liberty or right to commit these crimes..

Quote from: "TheJackel"Again, I can't make an illegal immigrant with a fake ID magically crawl out of your damn computer monitor to give you the evidence you seek. People like you really need to be taken on the streets and shown the real world. I have evidence, It's called what I know and see in the REAL WORLD! This isn't something I can fax you kiddo!.. For Pete's sake, I gave sample videos of hundreds if not thousands you can randomly find on youtube or elsewhere. And exactly what evidence do you want presented eh? Seriously, wake the ___k up.. And I know what you have said, and why you have dismissed links ect. However, your dismissal is due to your lack of actual education of wtf is going on in my neighborhood, who's who, who to avoid, what gangs are involved in what activity, where do these people live, what's the demographic of my own neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods. What's being discussed at the Town meetings and school boards. Police are usually very talkative about whats going on in your neighborhood if you ask. And the social groups in general are usually self evident after a while.

No source is 100% reliable, but there's a big difference between the articles based on assumptions and fallacy which you provided and articles based on data. You provided bullshit articles then because I don't accept bullshit as a reasonable source, you claim that I won't accept anything as a reasonable source? Untrue, but I don't even know why I'm even wasting time typing all this, you'll just make some baseless assumption, argue against your imagination while pretending it's me and/or completely ignore almost everything I say. Whatever is going on in your neighborhood, is not the whole nation, that's called sampling bias.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Again the evidence I have can't simply be given to you over the internet.. Sorry but that is a fact you are going to have to deal with.. Thus, please prove your own fallacy here that "evidence doesn't exist"... Easy to claim from behind the keyboard and a computer screen..

What kind of evidence is so magically resistant to the internet? Here is evidence for my fallacy: you claim that anyone who disagrees with you is just ignoring something, when asked for the something that they're ignoring you say you can't provide it, so; anyone who disagrees with you is ignoring that which you can't provide.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteThere's lot's of evidence you could provide if it existed, so in the absence of evidence for your claim let's just call it speculation and you can stop claiming that people that don't align with your point of view are ignoring the "evidence" (which doesn't exist). And once again, discuss what I say and not something you just made up.

And yep, you can certainly claim that anything I can provide you over the internet is "made up".. Hence why I conceded that fact that no matter what I post, provide, or show could be dismissed, denied, or simply stated as "made up"...

What I was claiming was "made up" was whatever you're responding to, because it's hardly ever what I'm saying, it's usually something else. This is a good example: I clearly said "And once again, discuss what I say and not something you just made up." The irony of your response to this statement is hilarious: Instead of responding to my comment about you not responding to my comments, you're responding to something else while pretending to respond to my comment.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Your argument is like claiming alcoholics can't be proven to kill people in car accidents over the internet because any evidence short of one's self being hit by a drunk driver can be dismissed as made up, staged, or non-empirical. And this is especially true over the internet without going out in the real world to witness it, ask questions, or call what-ever sources you might find to be reputable..

That isn't what my argument is, that is another straw man. My argument is that you providing articles based on nothing as the evidence for your argument means that your argument is based on nothing as well. My argument is that you're going around acting like you have facts and that anyone that doesn't align their views with yours on illegal immigration is just ignoring the problem or is just ignorant or not blessed with the amazing insight you have, when you don't have anything to back up what you're saying.

I have to admit, I'd like them to check in first; I don't sneak into another's house, myself.  At the same time, being a father, I can understand doing whatever it takes to ensure the safety, health, and opportunity of my progeny.

Over 20,000 have died in the last four years in the drug war ravaging Mexico, and if I lived there you can bet your backside that I'd GTFO promptly, through whatever means available.  

Also, Jackel, you're arguing both sides of a point when you say, "They steal IDs" and then turn around and say "They're not paying taxes," because the entire point of the ID theft is to provide them with legitimate cover in the workforce -- meaning that their earnings are indeed taxed.  As a retail manager living in Southern California, I can tell you from personal experience that this is so.  In October 2007, and again in June of 2008, and again in January, bp (yes, the oil-spill guys) had to pay fines and release workers who were discovered to have used false ID or SSNs.

The only thing that irks me is marchers marching under a Mexican flag, really, and even that isn't too much for me, because I'm not big on rah-rah jingoism.

Quote from: "Philosoraptor"I think I love you. :blush:

Quote from: "TheJackel"I have evidence, It's called what I know and see in the REAL WORLD! This isn't something I can fax you kiddo!.. For Pete's sake, I gave sample videos of hundreds if not thousands you can randomly find on youtube or elsewhere. And exactly what evidence do you want presented eh? Seriously, wake the ___k up.. And I know what you have said, and why you have dismissed links ect. However, your dismissal is due to your lack of actual education of actually goes on in illegal immigrant subculture.. Sorry, links I provided you accurately reflect everything I see on the streets, hear on the streets, and know what's going down in various neighborhoods..

Sorry, but your own personal, anecdotal experience does not qualify as evidence or fact.  Your opinion and experiences are in no way indicative of the majority, so please remove your cranium from your anus and stop pretending as if you know something the rest of us don't.

None of that even remotely addresses the main principles of the argument. And your ranting was useless considering that I have already conceded that there is no possible source I can provide you to which can be displayed on the internet that could be accepted as evidence.. We can even dismiss or ignore anything I know on the subject as well and it will not change the facts that illegals are illegally here, and all have committed a federal crime.. Sorry, but an illegal immigrant, should I provide one, is indeed evidence of Federal crime. Should I post the Laws for you?, Ok I will for giggles. And btw your argument that legals also commit these crimes is definitely irrelevant! WHy, because I expect that they too should be held accountable according to the law...What makes you think that magically makes your argument even relevant in regards to illegal alien legalities, or criminal activity? So let's go over some definitions and laws shall we?

Fraud:

Wiki:

QuoteIn the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent.

The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.

Such as defrauding the American taxpayer, employment fraud, tax evasion, credit fraud, falsifying documents, falsifying employment applications, Falsifying I-9 or other tax forms, knowingly working for employers without documentation, purchasing falsified documents, having false documents, opening accounts such as bank accounts and utilities with false documentation, being paid under the table according revenue laws,

In Civil law, I am actually able to sue any illegal immigrants for just crossing the boarder, or for any costs associated to their being here. Hence, defrauding the taxpayer of monies. Such costs associated with illegal entry, education, health care, or the simple lacking legal immigration status is a civil violation.



Crime:
Wiki:

QuoteCrime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction. Individual human societies may each define crime and crimes differently. While every crime violates the law

What Is The Law Concerning Employment And Illegal Aliens?

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) passed in 1986 prohibits an employer from knowingly hiring, recruiting, or referring illegal aliens for work in the United States, whether the individual is in the country illegally or because their immigration and residency status does not allow employment. The law also extends to employers who discover that an employee is an illegal alien after hiring.

So for example, The person here who hired these illegal immigrants to work in their home are also violators of the following, and thus are apart of the criminal activity..http://www.reportillegals.com/law.html (http://www.reportillegals.com/law.html)

QuoteSummary of Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324

    "Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

    Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

    A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

           1.

              assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
           2.

              encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
           3.

              knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

    Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman ... 1113.shtml (http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1301/article_1113.shtml)

QuoteIn March 2000, a group of U.S. citizens and legal immigrant workers did just that. The workers alleged that two Washington state fruit-packing companies had conspired with a labor contractor to hire illegal immigrants to depress the wages of legally authorized workers. In their Sept. 3 ruling, the Ninth Circuit panel agreed that the injuries suffered by the workers were "direct," which is a crucial technical element proving causation under RICO. The judges went on to note, "We are unable to discern a more direct victim of illegal conduct." The Ninth Circuit ruling comes on the heels of a 2001 decision by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. In that case, the court ruled that under RICO, a Connecticut cleaning company had standing to sue a competitor who had gained an unfair advantage through the systematic practice of hiring illegal immigrants. These two rulings, by two separate federal appellate courts, will dramatically change the way immigration policy is enforced in America.

In fact me and other local citizens, and legal immigrants are in the process of doing just that. If suing is the only means to control the job market, and who is here legally and illegally so be it. And here is something we are doing to help protect ourselves from illegal immigrants without having to sue. Illegal immigrants are one of the main reasons why our state is in such massive dept, and why poor American, or legal immigrants can't compete for jobs when the illegals work for lower wages to which businesses take advantage of.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/ ... ves_6.html (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/massachusetts_senate_approves_6.html)

Other examples why we are fighting illegals in regards to state budgets, and hospital closures.

[youtube:p93n6226]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjPBtfpn8wI[/youtube:p93n6226]
[youtube:p93n6226]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDjZ6gzo0C4[/youtube:p93n6226]


And again for the record I concede that all this can be dismissed as evidence, to which includes my own experiences because we apparently know nothing, or have no evidence about what we know about the problem so we can magically ignore it.

Hence who pays for this?

[youtube:p93n6226]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrvWtg4T1D8[/youtube:p93n6226]

How many of those illegals even stopped to give a shit about the person they hit?

This is interesting eh..

[youtube:p93n6226]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6t2ckpb5g[/youtube:p93n6226]

QuoteSorry, but your own personal, anecdotal experience does not qualify as evidence or fact.  Your opinion and experiences are in no way indicative of the majority, so please remove your cranium from your anus and stop pretending as if you know something the rest of us don't.

Actually they do, just not to you because I have no means to sharing them with you over the internet. empirical evidence does not require you the 3rd party over the internet to exist as a fact. But I will politely leave at that, and I'm sure the rest of the legal Citizens here in the USA will address and asses their own problems with illegal immigrants whether you think these problems don't exist or are perhaps dismissive do to any lack of 100 percent accurate statistics, or data.. And since you are willing to dismiss the illegals themselves as evidence, this suggests there is no evidence that can possibly be presented to you to verify any problems associated to them. This is regardless of the costs of our own legal citizenry, and is dishonest play to suggest we ought to incur these additional costs as if it were our duty to be a well-fare nation to the world. I will thus concede all inaccuracies so American's and legal immigrants can go on ignoring that there is even a problem because you claim I can't prove there is a problem over the internet with 100% accurate data.. I can't even prove data even exists considering it's just a concept.. And before you call someone on pretending to know something you don't, stop acting like you don't know anything.. Sorry, but 100% of them are all by definition criminals who partook in criminal activity and federal crime.. My empirical evidence is backed by the Laws written.. This includes Federal, criminal, and civil definitions, and codes.. Deal with it.  The rest based on my own experience will be conceded to that of my own experiences, and that of other citizens here in MA who deal with these problems on a daily bases.  3,000 to 4,000 border crossings a day does not = no fraudulent costs to the taxpayer, or federal crimes in regards to any of them!

[youtube:3rr3ag2t]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP21E_xvltg[/youtube:3rr3ag2t]

This guy is awesome and 100% how I feel.. And my Goal here in MA. However I have an additional proposal, all those in favor for illegal immigration, or support these illegals ought to foot the bill by filing for it on their taxes, and those that do will incur the sum total costs of all illegal immigration costs while exempting those of us who don't from having to.  This includes all medical, legal, or state and educational assistance.. This way I can use my money to support real charities that don't demand or take my money and assume that they are privilege to it even if it means breaking the law..

Quote from: "TheJackel"None of that even remotely addresses the main principles of the argument. And your ranting was useless considering that I have already conceded that there is no possible source I can provide you to which can be displayed on the internet that could be accepted as evidence..

I'd be careful who you accuse of ranting, TJ.  Considering you've conceded that you are unable to provide sufficient evidence for your claims over this medium, it would seem your dedication to continuing to make those claims which you admittedly can't provide sufficient evidence for might be more appropriately considered 'ranting' than anything anyone else on this thread has said.

Acting like I don't know anything?  That doesn't even make sense.  Not that I find this kind of statement surprising at this point, since you've already implied that we're uneducated and you know more than most of us.  Make up your mind.

Lets get a few things straight.  I don't support illegal immigration.  I don't think that those who are here illegally should be allowed to run amock and break laws without consequence.  I don't object entirely to everything you've said, but mostly how you've said it.  Obviously, illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be dealt with, but I very much disagree with your methods of expressing this.

So far, you've come across as a smarmy know it all with zero compassion or empathy.  THAT is what I take primary issue with.  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  Plenty of people have objected to illegal immigration and even said some of the same things you have said without sounding like an insufferable, heartless douche.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I've noticed all the people who seem to have problems with illegal immigrants are those who were fortunate enough to have been born in the US.  I get the feeling some people might feel differently if it were one of their parents or relatives facing deportation.  I find the lack of compassion a little disheartening.

America was founded by immigrants.  Immigrants who stole from the natives, and killed them.  Unless you happen to be a member of one of the Native American tribes that have always been here, you too are an immigrant.  I have a hard time saying that anyone who wants to be here shouldn't be given that opportunity.

False. I was born in the Philippines and I still have a problem with illegal immigrants.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "TheJackel"None of that even remotely addresses the main principles of the argument. And your ranting was useless considering that I have already conceded that there is no possible source I can provide you to which can be displayed on the internet that could be accepted as evidence..

I'd be careful who you accuse of ranting, TJ.  Considering you've conceded that you are unable to provide sufficient evidence for your claims over this medium, it would seem your dedication to continuing to make those claims which you admittedly can't provide sufficient evidence for might be more appropriately considered 'ranting' than anything anyone else on this thread has said.

I never said i wasn't ranting.. This is a heated debate and I will agree we are both ranting.. And I have provided sufficient evidence because most of them are well grounded with the legal statutes of our laws. The statistical data of course is likely not accurate in either direction within various links I have provided, and I have conceded they aren't. However, it's a fact that undocumented people are going to incur costs to the taxpayer, education system, health care system, legal system to which shouldn't even exist.., thus they should be prevented, prosecuted, and dealt with. You won't see me advocating clemency to legal immigrant, or legal citizen criminals because feel sorry for them, or their children and families either. So, this includes no bias towards legals who commit crimes either. In my view, no-body should be granted to be above reproach, or accountability just because someone will feel sorry for them.. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, or a costless one, and they all ought to know this when they jump the fence. This may be a rant, but it's a justly stated one with merit..

1) Are all illegals committing fraud? According to civil, federal, and criminal law.. yes!
2) Are we taxpayers footing the bill? Yes.. Supported by me paying taxes
3) Are illegals straining state resources? Yes. illegals aren't cost free
4) Are illegals getting state intuition and scholarships? Yes and No... Depends if your state allows it, or partakes in it, or has programs that fund and support it.
5) Are all illegals by definition illegal? yes
6) Are illegals subject to jurisdiction? No, we can't even try them for Treason, or call them to serve in the armed forces
7) Are illegals voting, Yes.. Supported by statistics on undocumented votes, ficticious SSN's, Stolen SSN's, or purchased SSN's.. As well as fake ID's ectra..
8) Are all illegals voting? Not likely, and some don't vote recognizing they have no right to vote..
9) Do illegals attempt to effect legislation of our laws, and how our government operates? Yes, if need be I can link to thousands of protest videos on youtube
10) Can the amount or number of estimated illegal entry from illegals be considered an invasion? Yes, especially when the majority are of one origin of ethnicity ranging from 3k to 4k a day. And especially so when they demand rights, vote, or commit crimes ect.
11) Are all illegals bad people? this is subjective to the morality game.. Is one that comes here and breaks the law a good person? Is federal crime, or fraud the indicator of who's naughty or nice? In my -->opinion<--, yes.. Especially when it's recklessly assumed and demanded, or taken.
12) Is there any excuse to come here illegally? No
13) Should America be expected to open doors, and sacrifice wild life, space, or resources? No
14) Do some illegals positively contribute? Yes, but surely doesn't excuse their crimes, or accountability, or excuse the need to close the boarders and stop illegal immigration.
15) Is controlled legal immigration important to the well being of this country? Most Definitely is.
16) Should anyone be above reproach and accountability for their actions? No
17) Are illagals citizens, and should the even have any legal rights here other than the obvious civil protections under UN law? No..


I could add more but I think we get the point..

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Acting like I don't know anything?  That doesn't even make sense.  Not that I find this kind of statement surprising at this point, since you've already implied that we're uneducated and you know more than most of us.  Make up your mind.

Lets get a few things straight.  I don't support illegal immigration.  I don't think that those who are here illegally should be allowed to run amock and break laws without consequence.  I don't object entirely to everything you've said, but mostly how you've said it.  Obviously, illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be dealt with, but I very much disagree with your methods of expressing this.

So far, you've come across as a smarmy know it all with zero compassion or empathy.  THAT is what I take primary issue with.  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  Plenty of people have objected to illegal immigration and even said some of the same things you have said without sounding like an insufferable, heartless douche.

Point taken. I wasn't exactly clean with my responses, and don't mistaken me for no empathy because I'm open to various options so long as it effectively solves the entire problem, and prevents it from continuing or recurring.. I have even suggested means to which they can serve community service as justice served to pay for the crimes they committed that don't exceed what only relates their illegality of citizenry, and costs. This which btw is far more heartful that putting them all in prison. It's hardly being heartless, vs expecting accountability and action to effectively fix the problem. And sadly, it's not going to include no accountability on the part of the illegal immigrants, and may even result in selective deportations based on criminal records.. If American's were doing this to Canada, I don't think the Canadian's would be all too happy about it.. Sometimes you have to take the hard-ass route to get something fixed.  And that is something Arizona is attempting to do.. And if i was heartless I would ignore how this all victimizes the taxpayer, legal immigrants, and law abiding citizens who are equally expected to be accountable for their actions. I hope we can at least agree on that.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "TheJackel"None of that even remotely addresses the main principles of the argument. And your ranting was useless considering that I have already conceded that there is no possible source I can provide you to which can be displayed on the internet that could be accepted as evidence..

I'd be careful who you accuse of ranting, TJ.  Considering you've conceded that you are unable to provide sufficient evidence for your claims over this medium, it would seem your dedication to continuing to make those claims which you admittedly can't provide sufficient evidence for might be more appropriately considered 'ranting' than anything anyone else on this thread has said.

I never said i wasn't ranting.. This is a heated debate and I will agree we are both ranting.. And I have provided sufficient evidence because most of them are well grounded with the legal statutes of our laws. The statistical data of course is likely not accurate in either direction within various links I have provided, and I have conceded they aren't. However, it's a fact that undocumented people are going to incur costs to the taxpayer, education system, health care system, legal system to which shouldn't even exist.., thus they should be prevented, prosecuted, and dealt with. You won't see me advocating clemency to legal immigrant, or legal citizen criminals because feel sorry for them, or their children and families either. So, this includes no bias towards legals who commit crimes either. In my view, no-body should be granted to be above reproach, or accountability just because someone will feel sorry for them.. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, or a costless one, and they all ought to know this when they jump the fence. This may be a rant, but it's a justly stated one with merit..

1) Are all illegals committing fraud? According to civil, federal, and criminal law.. yes!
2) Are we taxpayers footing the bill? Yes.. Supported by me paying taxes
3) Are illegals straining state resources? Yes. illegals aren't cost free
4) Are illegals getting state intuition and scholarships? Yes and No... Depends if your state allows it, or partakes in it, or has programs that fund and support it.
5) Are all illegals by definition illegal? yes
6) Are illegals subject to jurisdiction? No, we can't even try them for Treason, or call them to serve in the armed forces
7) Are illegals voting, Yes.. Supported by statistics on undocumented votes, ficticious SSN's, Stolen SSN's, or purchased SSN's.. As well as fake ID's ectra..
8) Are all illegals voting? Not likely, and some don't vote recognizing they have no right to vote..
9) Do illegals attempt to effect legislation of our laws, and how our government operates? Yes, if need be I can link to thousands of protest videos on youtube
10) Can the amount or number of estimated illegal entry from illegals be considered an invasion? Yes, especially when the majority are of one origin of ethnicity ranging from 3k to 4k a day. And especially so when they demand rights, vote, or commit crimes ect.
11) Are all illegals bad people? this is subjective to the morality game.. Is one that comes here and breaks the law a good person? Is federal crime, or fraud the indicator of who's naughty or nice? In my -->opinion<--, yes.. Especially when it's recklessly assumed and demanded, or taken.
12) Is there any excuse to come here illegally? No
13) Should America be expected to open doors, and sacrifice wild life, space, or resources? No
14) Do some illegals positively contribute? Yes, but surely doesn't excuse their crimes, or accountability, or excuse the need to close the boarders and stop illegal immigration.
15) Is controlled legal immigration important to the well being of this country? Most Definitely is.
16) Should anyone be above reproach and accountability for their actions? No
17) Are illagals citizens, and should the even have any legal rights here other than the obvious civil protections under UN law? No..


I could add more but I think we get the point..

After 6 pages of this, I'm pretty confident I understand your opinion.  But, it still sounds like a lot of opinion with little empirical data to back it up.  I would still like to see some empirical data on the subject from a source who is a bit less emotionally involved in the issue.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So for example, The person here who hired these illegal immigrants to work in their home are also violators of the following, and thus are apart of the criminal activity..http://www.reportillegals.com/law.html (http://www.reportillegals.com/law.html)

That "violator" would be me, but what I said was that for all I know my yardman and cleaning lady are illegal immigrants. I never asked them for their papers for goodness sake. I found them through references from others who employ them. I very much doubt that they are here unlawfully but I honestly don't know that for sure. What I know is they're responsible and trustworthy and I like them both very much.

But you, you seem to actually want them to be here unlawfully, in which case you think that it's my duty to turn them in to the authorities, these people who have become members of my little family, who are my friends, whose sons and daughters I've come to know and are always welcome in my house, these people who treat my house and property as if it was their own and whose work is beyond any reproach, these people who I consider myself very fortunate to have in my life.

I can't help but get the feeling that you're revealing something about yourself that I'd prefer not to name or make obvious comparisons to, and even if I'm wrong, Jackal, it's still very evident that, as Arthur Miller said, your kind of justice would freeze beer.

TheJackel, I understand your point and for a lot of it I agree, what I disagree with is the condescending language and what appears to be hostility toward those that aren't as focused and/or concerned about the issue as you are. The only way I can understand that kind of approach is if you had provided evidence to why you think the problem is as severe as you make it seem. This kind of approach inhibits honest and open discussion. All I've been asking is that you drop that, not that you don't express your opinion, but I'm sure several people may have had something to say on the topic but didn't want to deal with the ravings, condescending tones and attacks from someone just to express them.

I realize it may have been easier if I said this at the start, however I'm usually blind to the best approach before hand.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "TheJackel"So for example, The person here who hired these illegal immigrants to work in their home are also violators of the following, and thus are apart of the criminal activity..http://www.reportillegals.com/law.html (http://www.reportillegals.com/law.html)

That "violator" would be me, but what I said was that for all I know my yardman and cleaning lady are illegal immigrants. I never asked them for their papers for goodness sake. I found them through references from others who employ them. I very much doubt that they are here unlawfully but I honestly don't know that for sure. What I know is they're responsible and trustworthy and I like them both very much.

But you, you seem to actually want them to be here unlawfully, in which case you think that it's my duty to turn them in to the authorities, these people who have become members of my little family, who are my friends, whose sons and daughters I've come to know and are always welcome in my house, these people who treat my house and property as if it was their own and whose work is beyond any reproach, these people who I consider myself very fortunate to have in my life.

I can't help but get the feeling that you're revealing something about yourself that I'd prefer not to name or make obvious comparisons to, and even if I'm wrong, Jackal, it's still very evident that, as Arthur Miller said, your kind of justice would freeze beer.

Why would I want them to be unlawful? Nowhere did I state that they were, and I merely used it as an example as noted in the post above with "for example". My Kind of Justice is what exactly? What kind of Justice did that guy in that video get when the illegal totaled his car? You seriously think me and other taxpayers being forced to pay for illegals is Justice? Does Justice for all just but illegal immigrants who commit a crime? This is hardly Freeze Beer. So I get the feeling that your Justice is that "if for example" you like someone that they ought to be above the law and never be held accountable? As one would or could say, your justice is Anarchistic.

Quote from: "Davin"TheJackel, I understand your point and for a lot of it I agree, what I disagree with is the condescending language and what appears to be hostility toward those that aren't as focused and/or concerned about the issue as you are. The only way I can understand that kind of approach is if you had provided evidence to why you think the problem is as severe as you make it seem. This kind of approach inhibits honest and open discussion. All I've been asking is that you drop that, not that you don't express your opinion, but I'm sure several people may have had something to say on the topic but didn't want to deal with the ravings, condescending tones and attacks from someone just to express them.

I realize it may have been easier if I said this at the start, however I'm usually blind to the best approach before hand.

I find it interesting because I often get called a racist or subjected to social dogmas in attempts to keep me silent on the issue.. Often do people bring up Fascism, Nazi, and other such condescending language in order to make condescending and suggestive rhetoric to which appears to be hostility to people like myself who are sick of being used like a piggy bank for illegal immigrants, or used as employment documents, or credit score banks.. This also inhibits honest open discussion.. And this discussion seems to also rely on the dogmatic opinion to dismiss the reality of the problems, costs, crimes, and victims.. If I even so much as talk about effective border control I almost instantly get ridiculed, and I find that rather interesting.. Under the OP, I find that Arizona is doing the right thing, as are we here in Boston to finally take action where nobody else cares to take action in order to protect our jobs, identity, schools, or hospitals from closures, and borders in order to encourage legal immigration, and legal immigrants.. I'm simply done being forced to pay for it, I can't even afford to go to the doctor even with health insurance, or even go to college.. If I get hit by an illegal driving a Car, I end up paying for him and myself as well as his legal fees and my legal fees. Tell me how that is justice?

Quote from: "TheJackel"Trying to infuse the Hitler or Nazi fascists argument into the mix is playing circular games, and is entirely dishonest.

So it's trying to infuse Nazis into the mix by pointing out that the authors of the Arizona law and their close associates hang out with neo-Nazis?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_BLlJwLdIRpk%2FR0PjLS5F7-I%2FAAAAAAAAAZ4%2FhxmSDmOGVWM%2Fs400%2FJTReady.jpg&hash=6a607ca99fa688b18191f2a3e3b4d113938bae14)

The man in the Suit is JT Ready who just announced he's leading an armed force into the Arizona desert (http://www.heatcity.org/2010/06/neo-nazi-who-called-for-landmines-on-border-heads-to-the-desert-armed.html) and is calling for land mines to be placed along the border.

Russell Pearce, Arizona Senator behind the immigration law is pals with JT Ready.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg708.imageshack.us%2Fimg708%2F6244%2Freadyandrussell.jpg&hash=e92f31aef72d76c0b284435d78dd6df4433d8a37)

Pearce has also written supportive emails to neo-Nazi groups.  On the fifth of June, Pearce spoke at an anti-immigrant rally organized by others with neo-Nazi ties.  So why is it an infusion or some kind of card if actual neo-Nazis are involved?

Here's a fun link with links to assorted other evidence that Senator Pearce has neo-Nazi connections. (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/little-local-fascism.html)

But you seem to be totally ignoring the objection to this law, that American citizens will be targeted, possibly detained, possibly harmed and certainly have their rights as American citizens infringed upon.  Now, my family doesn't live in Arizona but about half of them are of a skin color that could get them detained in Arizona.  I'm half Native American.  My relatives are as well.  A good deal of them are brown.  My white ancestors immigrated over a hundred years ago and my brown ancestors immigrated here thousands of years ago.  None of us are in any shape or form illegal aliens.  But if my cousins went to Arizona, they'd have to prove their citizenship.  Their teenage kids could get detained for being brown and not carrying around enough ID - and a driver's license or school ID is not being considered sufficient.

You'd seriously be OK with American citizens being detained until they could be proven citizens or worse - getting dumped across the border?  Keep in mind that the number of detention injuries and deaths in Arizona are suspiciously high, above national averages, and linked to one of the law's biggest supporters - Sheriff Joe Arpao, also a neo-Nazi associate.

Not just American citizens being detained, but American citizens who happen to have the misfortune of not being white.  I can't picture officers pulling over carloads of white people just to make sure that they aren't in fact illegal Serbians or Poles or Germans or Canadians...well, you get the point.  This law leaves a lot of room for racial discrimination, and there's nothing to protect even legal citizens from that.

I think that an important distinction, at least for me, is that I don't know what should be done about the general issue of illegal immigration, but I do know that the Arizona law is NOT the answer.  Like I said before, mandating racial profiling by law officials is wrong.  It's like saying 'we don't like illegal immigrants, so we're going to go ahead and make racism legal.'  Whaa?  In my opinion, the ends do not justify the means.  Demonizing and dehumanizing illegals isn't going to make the means any more justifiable to me, because there is NO reason why any American citizen should ever have to endure being harassed by police, simply because they're brown/otherwise foreign looking or sounding.  The very concept sounds entirely un-American, to be honest.

Quote from: "TheJackel"I find it interesting because I often get called a racist or subjected to social dogmas in attempts to keep me silent on the issue.. Often do people bring up Fascism, Nazi, and other such condescending language in order to make condescending and suggestive rhetoric to which appears to be hostility to people like myself who are sick of being used like a piggy bank for illegal immigrants, or used as employment documents, or credit score banks.. This also inhibits honest open discussion.. And this discussion seems to also rely on the dogmatic opinion to dismiss the reality of the problems, costs, crimes, and victims.. If I even so much as talk about effective border control I almost instantly get ridiculed, and I find that rather interesting.. Under the OP, I find that Arizona is doing the right thing, as are we here in Boston to finally take action where nobody else cares to take action in order to protect our jobs, identity, schools, or hospitals from closures, and borders in order to encourage legal immigration, and legal immigrants.. I'm simply done being forced to pay for it, I can't even afford to go to the doctor even with health insurance, or even go to college.. If I get hit by an illegal driving a Car, I end up paying for him and myself as well as his legal fees and my legal fees. Tell me how that is justice?

The only time I brought up Nazi-ish crap was when you made a statement that "6) Advocating for illegal aliens is like advocating illegal activity, credit fraud, tax fraud, employment fraud, health care fraud, federal crime, taxpayers should foot the bill for these peoples live ectra.." because I was showing you an equally fallacious argument in order to point out the fallacious nature of that statement. Advocating for illegal immigrants by trying to fix the problem without causing too much more suffering to people who have already suffered a great deal is in no way supporting any of that other crap. I in no way thought you were some kind of Nazi or racist, and if you noticed I never even accused you of being such.

I've offered no dogmatic opinions, I merely asked you to identify yours as dogmatic due to the lack of evidence you can provide. I've never attempted to dismiss illegal immigration as a problem, just asked how big the problem is. Providing personal revelation as evidence is something I reject due to it's consistently inaccurate performance in describing reality, the inability of being able to verify it and poor predictions that result from relying on it.

Also you mentioned several problems that may have other solutions to them. Health care costs isn't merely the result of people not paying for their medical treatment and there are several other options that would solve the problem. It seems like you're using illegal immigration as some kind of magic bullet that will solve all the problems we're currently experiencing. Of course this is probably only the appearance because of the topic of the thread. The only reason I bring it up is because there may be better options to fixing these problems which is why I'm asking for how big the problem is. Will the AZ illegal immigration bill fix the problem? I doubt it, but making our country worse seems to be solving the illegal immigration problem as over the last few years the rate at which people are illegally entering our country has dropped. Which is I want to know what the costs of fixing the illegal immigration are compared to the cost the problem is causing. Because while I'm perfectly willing to fix a problem without causing a bigger one, I'm not willing to make this country worse in order to fix a problem.

Kylyssa,

I don't condone it, and these Nazi's aren't the type of people I'd hang around. I don't think racial profiling is at all a good idea. My argument concerns all illegals of all national origins.. I don't care if you are white, black, red skin, Latino, Italian, or whatever. And Arizona's law doesn't have any language in it that says anything about a specific target race, color, or nationality.. What pathetic hate groups do on their own is irrelevant to the legislation/bill.. Most of what needs to be done is checking employers and all their employees.. Here in MA it's definitely not about racial profiling or hate, it's about the problems and solving them. It's important to separate the hate groups from those who see the need to fix these issues before they get worse. Boston is so far in dept that it literally can not afford to be illegal immigrants state wellfare bank. It simply can't support them, nor should it be in the first place.. So those things are what we are changing.

Davin,

I was aware of why you did it, but I found that suggestive considering it's been used as a common argument against any action against illegal immigrants.. I am only stating the typical rhetoric I get all the time, I find it funny though when I tell someone that does accuse me of being a Nazi that I am Brazilian And I never stated that solving the illegal immigrant problem would be a magic bullet to solve all the problems in this country.. I am clearly open to solutions as stated before that resolve the issue pertaining to illegal immigrants.. We are not here talking about various other problems that agreeably need to be addressed.. Sorry, but the boarders need to be closed and the best way to do that is take away what they come here illegally to get at the cost of the taxpayer.. Controlled legal immigrations is the only logical answer to wrestle control of the illegal immigration problem. The Federal Government Failed to do anything, so we are forced to do so on a state level. Some of us are already working to draft similar legislation in Minnesota.

And I have yet to see the illegal immigrants come up with any logical solutions, or even care to take accountability.. There is absolutely no cooperation from illegal immigrants because they know that they will in one way or another have to address and take responsibility for the problems they cause, and the crimes they have committed.. This isn't something you get away with in countries like New Zealand, you can't even move there or work there unless you have family there, or a skill set they require to which will benefit their country.. The United States needs to start doing the same, and spend more on helping the poor who already live here, keeping the nation stable, not over populating, protecting the wild life and reserves from needless over development.. There is literally a ton of reasons why we should control immigration...


And I am curious, do any of you have any ideas on addressing the problem?

The only real solution to illegal immigration is to stabilize Mexico.  People don't often leave their homeland unless the circumstances compel it.

Invite Mexico to become the 51st state, problem largely solved?

Hahah, they'd love the looser government but hate the trailer parks.

The solution for a broken fence isn't to waste time and money to try to scare the sheep so they won't go through the hole anymore.  You mend the fence.  Were it that simple, of course, this wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is, but enacting a costly, racist law isn't helpful.

I say racist because of this part of the law:

QuoteAuthorizes local police to make an arrest without a warrant of any person they believe is “removable from the United States.”

Also, it would seem at least some AZ law enforcement officials are unhappy about the law.

Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
“The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner. While AACOP recognizes immigration as a significant issue in Arizona, we remain strong in our belief that it is an issue most appropriately addressed at the federal level.”

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Pima County, AZ
“…in the past few weeks Arizona became a model for the rest of the country of what not to do.  I have an enormous amount of respect for the men and women of my department… But no one can tell them what an illegal immigrant looks like and when it is ok to begin questioning a person along those lines. This law puts them in a no-win situation: They will be forced to offend and anger someone who is perhaps a citizen or here legally when they ask to see his papersâ€"or be accused of nonfeasance because they do not.  Law enforcement did not ask for and does not need this new tool. What we do need is assistance from the federal government in the form of effective strategies to secure the border.  Additionally, the federal government must take up this issue in the form of comprehensive immigration reform policy.”

(emphasis mine)

Sergeant Brian Soller, Mesa, AZ; President, Mesa Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
"If we’re getting hammered with calls, is a misdemeanor [trespassing by an illegal immigrant] more important than a stabbing or shooting? No. The problem with this law is that it’s an unfunded mandate and could eat up a lot of manpower and cost a lot of money."

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0603-giovagnoli.shtm

Quote from: "TheJackel"What pathetic hate groups do on their own is irrelevant to the legislation/bill.

How is it irrelevant when hate group supporters and members wrote the bill?  How is the Senator who put it forward irrelevant?  How is the lawyer that actually drafted the bill irrelevant?  Their motives are relevant.  When the "pathetic hate groups" are linked to the creation of the bill it is relevant.

Please explain how, without racial profiling, an Arizona cop can intercept people who appear to be illegal immigrants, not as they are crossing the border but as they are walking down the street, living in a home, driving in a car, or sitting on a porch?  By what non-racial cues can a cop use to tell a person on the street in Arizona is an illegal immigrant?  There aren't any and they can't.  Which is why some groups of Arizona cops who can find no way to enforce this law without violating the rights of American citizens are refusing to enforce it.    

I don't like the crime surrounding illegal immigration at all.  But violating the rights of American citizens or surrendering freedoms is not they way to address it.  The Arizona law, that calls for police to intercept illegal immigrants using simple observation away from the border to determine who those illegal aliens are, requires police to hit or miss harass people with brown skin in Arizona.

All around the country police can already haul in someone who, in the commission of a crime or who has been stopped for a traffic violation, is believed to be an illegal alien.  But nowhere else but Arizona can they take a person off the street for violating no laws on the suspicion of them being an illegal alien.  Don't you understand why that's not a good idea?

From what I've read, they revised the law so that they couldn't just bug anyone, though it sounds like the language of the law makes it easily manipulatable so that if a police officer wanted to bug someone, they could easily find a reason to.

QuoteA: A week after Gov. Brewer signed the law, the state legislature amended it to address some of the most egregious concerns, such as changing the requirement that police must determine immigration status during any “lawful contact” (for instance, saying hello to a bunch of kids in front of an ice cream stand, giving directions, helping a lost child) to any “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” (for instance, a traffic stop).  While this limits the reach of the law somewhat, the legislature also made it clear that police must make immigration inquiries in response to any “law or ordinance of a county, city, or town” which means that noise complaints, leaving a disabled car on the street, or failing to recycle could lead to questions about immigration status.  According to correspondence between sponsor Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce and Kris Kobach of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, these two changes made together ensure that virtually any contact could still allow police to “initiate [immigration] queries as well [1].”

This is from the same source I linked to in the last comment I left.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"From what I've read, they revised the law so that they couldn't just bug anyone, though it sounds like the language of the law makes it easily manipulatable so that if a police officer wanted to bug someone, they could easily find a reason to.

QuoteA: A week after Gov. Brewer signed the law, the state legislature amended it to address some of the most egregious concerns, such as changing the requirement that police must determine immigration status during any “lawful contact” (for instance, saying hello to a bunch of kids in front of an ice cream stand, giving directions, helping a lost child) to any “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” (for instance, a traffic stop).  While this limits the reach of the law somewhat, the legislature also made it clear that police must make immigration inquiries in response to any “law or ordinance of a county, city, or town” which means that noise complaints, leaving a disabled car on the street, or failing to recycle could lead to questions about immigration status.  According to correspondence between sponsor Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce and Kris Kobach of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, these two changes made together ensure that virtually any contact could still allow police to “initiate [immigration] queries as well [1].”

This is from the same source I linked to in the last comment I left.

I don't agree with bugging anyone, and under that stipulation I wouldn't support the bill or law.. There must be accountability on both ends.. Besides, inquires really only need to be done in the schools (checking if all students are legal), businesses (especially farm, and construction companies), hospitals, or in the key areas to where illegals would require the use of in order to effectively remain here. Though I'm sure we can compose a solution to those who have lived and worked here for a long time without extended criminal records..

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The only real solution to illegal immigration is to stabilize Mexico.  People don't often leave their homeland unless the circumstances compel it.

That is up the the Mexicans, and you can't expect us to become the Wellfare bank for another country. Especially a country that would likely just take the money and pocket it.

QuoteAuthorizes local police to make an arrest without a warrant of any person they believe is “removable from the United States.”

So if they see a group of illegals jumping the fence, they ought not be allowed to detain, question, or make an inquiry? Sounds like advocating zero action policy.. I see no problems with allowing police to make judgment calls considering they are a border state where this kind of activity frequently occurs. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be guidelines or further amendments to ensure accountability and protection for legal citizens. I think you are overstating a conspiracy theory to ethnically target individuals. You do realize that many of the legal immigrants in Arizona support this Bill correct?

I don't mean for this to be a "gotcha," Jackel, but I'm wondering how you reconcile this statement you made on another thread with your hard-line stance on illegal immigrants:

"We are all beautiful unique butterflies to which effect the existing world and order around us. We are equally the stuff that makes a star shine as we are the stuff that thrives on it's energy to survive. We are in a dance of synchrony, like that of a symphony energy. Hence, we are all natural material physical phenomenon, unique as chaotic systems to which give us our own Identities, personalities, and individual uniqueness."

Aren't illegal immigrants also beautiful unique butterflies?

Quote from: "Tank"Invite Mexico to become the 51st state, problem largely solved?

Somehow I don't think that would work out :).

Quote from: "i_am_i"I don't mean for this to be a "gotcha," Jackel, but I'm wondering how you reconcile this statement you made on another thread with your hard-line stance on illegal immigrants:

"We are all beautiful unique butterflies to which effect the existing world and order around us. We are equally the stuff that makes a star shine as we are the stuff that thrives on it's energy to survive. We are in a dance of synchrony, like that of a symphony energy. Hence, we are all natural material physical phenomenon, unique as chaotic systems to which give us our own Identities, personalities, and individual uniqueness."

Aren't illegal immigrants also beautiful unique butterflies?

Yes they are.. In no way am I stating illegals are evil or vile people.. As beautiful as we are individually we can still have negative and often un-intended impacts. All I am looking to do is solve the problems within reason, and it's increasingly difficult when illegals don't get directly involved with brokering solutions to the overall problem. When no action is taken the problem gets worse, and eventually leads to far more negative events such as economic collapse, environmental collapse, hate crimes, ectra.. There needs to be real solutions, and I think that is what most people want.

So what kind of Future do you want to see? Another 3rd world country over populated to which it can no longer support? A nation that loses it's natural habitats? Or that reasonable solutions for the Greater Good (not just humans), or overall balance? As chaotic as this world is, we can't save everyone when it's literally beyond our means to do so. Nor can we sustain support for 3k to 4k illegal immigrants everyday for the next unknown number of years.

And no I don't have all the answers, and I can be equally wrong on many points myself. But I do feel that everyone needs to start seriously thinking about confronting these issues and finding ways to solve them, otherwise we are letting something fester into a really big problem that could cost us far more than what we are presently arguing about. So we can't have anarchy, or let law over step reasonable bounds. So this I why I have asked many of you about what kind of solutions you think are viably applicable to solve the problem.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteAuthorizes local police to make an arrest without a warrant of any person they believe is “removable from the United States.”

So if they see a group of illegals jumping the fence, they ought not be allowed to detain, question, or make an inquiry? Sounds like advocating zero action policy.. I see no problems with allowing police to make judgment calls considering they are a border state where this kind of activity frequently occurs. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be guidelines or further amendments to ensure accountability and protection for legal citizens. I think you are overstating a conspiracy theory to ethnically target individuals. You do realize that many of the legal immigrants in Arizona support this Bill correct?

Hahaha, well if the instance is a person jumping some fence between Mexico and the US, then questioning them would obviously be a proper application of the law.  However, there are already Federal laws in place which allow for questioning people who are caught crossing the boarder illegally, which makes this new Arizona law redundant and unnecessary in regard to your hypothetical.  

I guarantee you that for every 'so, if a cop sees an illegal raping a baby, he/she SHOULDN'T do anything?  Rabble rabble rabble' I could come up with a hypothetical situation where the law might be abused because of the language in which it is written.  The point is that the language of the law allows for abuse of legal citizens' rights, which I think is unacceptable.  You claim I'm overstating a conspiracy theory, I say you're remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that the law was written in a way that allows for, if not mandates racial profiling.  We obviously disagree.  

Claiming (again, without evidence to back up your claim) that "many" legal immigrants support the bill doesn't really mean anything.  I would argue that legal immigrants might not have as much of an understanding of the spirit of America as those of us who are from here, so it makes sense you might not see anything wrong with the bill.  I do, but again, I was raised here and was told my entire life that America was a place where the rights of the people (even brown ones!) are inalienable.  This bill was written a way that makes it legal for American citizens to be harassed and detained by the police, something I see as an infringement of rights, and so I don't support it.  No amount of legal immigrant support is going to sway me.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteAuthorizes local police to make an arrest without a warrant of any person they believe is “removable from the United States.”

So if they see a group of illegals jumping the fence, they ought not be allowed to detain, question, or make an inquiry? Sounds like advocating zero action policy.. I see no problems with allowing police to make judgment calls considering they are a border state where this kind of activity frequently occurs. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be guidelines or further amendments to ensure accountability and protection for legal citizens. I think you are overstating a conspiracy theory to ethnically target individuals. You do realize that many of the legal immigrants in Arizona support this Bill correct?

Hahaha, well if the instance is a person jumping some fence between Mexico and the US, then questioning them would obviously be a proper application of the law.  However, there are already Federal laws in place which allow for questioning people who are caught crossing the boarder illegally, which makes this new Arizona law redundant and unnecessary in regard to your hypothetical.  

I guarantee you that for every 'so, if a cop sees an illegal raping a baby, he/she SHOULDN'T do anything?  Rabble rabble rabble' I could come up with a hypothetical situation where the law might be abused because of the language in which it is written.  The point is that the language of the law allows for abuse of legal citizens' rights, which I think is unacceptable.  You claim I'm overstating a conspiracy theory, I say you're remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that the law was written in a way that allows for, if not mandates racial profiling.  We obviously disagree.  

Claiming (again, without evidence to back up your claim) that "many" legal immigrants support the bill doesn't really mean anything.  I would argue that legal immigrants might not have as much of an understanding of the spirit of America as those of us who are from here, so it makes sense you might not see anything wrong with the bill.  I do, but again, I was raised here and was told my entire life that America was a place where the rights of the people (even brown ones!) are inalienable.  This bill was written a way that makes it legal for American citizens to be harassed and detained by the police, something I see as an infringement of rights, and so I don't support it.  No amount of legal immigrant support is going to sway me.

I can see your redundancy argument and I would agree that it appears to be redundant.. Giving the light of that fact, is it then redundant that apparently this bill reflects what is already law? I can also come up with a hypothetical situation to which any law can be abused in the same manner.. Cops could for example only seek out black people jaywalking.. Technically any law can be used to infringe on your rights in that regard. Abuse of the system isn't terribly hard to do if you are some racist cop, or citizen looking to harass someone.

So instead of hypothetical possibilities of abuse, what solutions would you have that couldn't possibly be used in such hypothetical abuse?


I_am_I,
 please refrain from quote mining me out of context.. That was inappropriate.

Actually, if it's shown that a police officer is only handing out tickets to black people for jaywalking, that police officer would himself be in trouble because his actions would be considered racially motivated.

Personally, I don't have any solutions.  I never claimed I did.  However, I don't think supporting a bad law is the answer.

Where did I quote mine you out of context?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Where did I quote mine you out of context?

I'm sorry, you didn't :( I will edit it and fix that

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Actually, if it's shown that a police officer is only handing out tickets to black people for jaywalking, that police officer would himself be in trouble because his actions would be considered racially motivated.

Personally, I don't have any solutions.  I never claimed I did.  However, I don't think supporting a bad law is the answer.

I will contend that I may be wrong to support this Bill should the above be the case.. I do however strongly feel that something needs to be done, and I don't think that will come without the risks of abuse by people who intend to abuse the system :frown:

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Where did I quote mine you out of context?

I'm sorry, you didn't :(

Hahaha, OK, I kept re-reading what I wrote going 'where did I do that?!?'  :/ So I don't have the magic bullet solution either, and I don't think you can have a 100 percent magic bullet solution to this problem. But it's pretty clear to me that something has got to be done, and done soon.  [/quote]

I agree with you.  I think illegal immigration is an issue that has a lot of people pissed off with the government because it would seem the government isn't doing enough about the problem.  I think that's why states like Arizona and the other 22 states that were planning on following Arizona's example (to a varying extent) are proof that people want a solution or solutions that produce results.  While I think the AZ law is a really bad piece of legislation, if it gets the Federal government more focused on the issues of illegal immigration then at least some good will have come of it.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Davin,

I was aware of why you did it, but I found that suggestive considering it's been used as a common argument against any action against illegal immigrants.. I am only stating the typical rhetoric I get all the time, I find it funny though when I tell someone that does accuse me of being a Nazi that I am Brazilian

I said equally fallacious; what you said is what most people in support of AZ bill say about those that aren't. So I gave the thing said about those that support it. Both statements are equal in every way I can think of, just opposite extremes of the same fallacy.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Sorry, but the boarders need to be closed and the best way to do that is take away what they come here illegally to get at the cost of the taxpayer.. Controlled legal immigrations is the only logical answer to wrestle control of the illegal immigration problem. The Federal Government Failed to do anything, so we are forced to do so on a state level. Some of us are already working to draft similar legislation in Minnesota.

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. In return they get to call the police when they're getting/have been attacked, getting/have been robbed... by providing safety and/or justice to them from paying taxes it may make paying taxes far more appealing and will likely reduce the amount of crimes committed against illegal immigrants. It would give most of them a pay raise as they would then be protected under the U.S. labor laws.

I don't think we need to worry about overpopulation because these people won't be able to afford their own 2-5 acres of land, they'll likely be renting apartments which can be very space friendly by going up to 5-10 stories high. The cost would be offset by the large amount of new taxpayers. The amount of money they'll be spending on food, water, waste, power, shelter and other things will supply more jobs for people to provide those goods and services. Most of the current illegal immigrants are already buying the goods and services, so if they were to magically become U.S. citizens today, those services would still be provided without any problems.

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 either cause the other countries to become stronger, fail or go all Kim Jong Il by trapping the people and lying to them. Countries like Mexico have a lot of businesses that have dealings with companies in the U.S. which would make the last option far less likely for many of the countries. The other countries improve or continuously die off until they improve which would make the U.S. far less attractive which would lessen the amount of illegal and legal immigrants while improving a great amount of the world through a Capitalistic approach of supplying the demand for a safe, free place to live.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Davin,

I was aware of why you did it, but I found that suggestive considering it's been used as a common argument against any action against illegal immigrants.. I am only stating the typical rhetoric I get all the time, I find it funny though when I tell someone that does accuse me of being a Nazi that I am Brazilian

I said equally fallacious; what you said is what most people in support of AZ bill say about those that aren't. So I gave the thing said about those that support it. Both statements are equal in every way I can think of, just opposite extremes of the same fallacy.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Sorry, but the boarders need to be closed and the best way to do that is take away what they come here illegally to get at the cost of the taxpayer.. Controlled legal immigrations is the only logical answer to wrestle control of the illegal immigration problem. The Federal Government Failed to do anything, so we are forced to do so on a state level. Some of us are already working to draft similar legislation in Minnesota.

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. In return they get to call the police when they're getting/have been attacked, getting/have been robbed... by providing safety and/or justice to them from paying taxes it may make paying taxes far more appealing and will likely reduce the amount of crimes committed against illegal immigrants. It would give most of them a pay raise as they would then be protected under the U.S. labor laws.

I don't think we need to worry about overpopulation because these people won't be able to afford their own 2-5 acres of land, they'll likely be renting apartments which can be very space friendly by going up to 5-10 stories high. The cost would be offset by the large amount of new taxpayers. The amount of money they'll be spending on food, water, waste, power, shelter and other things will supply more jobs for people to provide those goods and services. Most of the current illegal immigrants are already buying the goods and services, so if they were to magically become U.S. citizens today, those services would still be provided without any problems.

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 either cause the other countries to become stronger, fail or go all Kim Jong Il by trapping the people and lying to them. Countries like Mexico have a lot of businesses that have dealings with companies in the U.S. which would make the last option far less likely for many of the countries. The other countries improve or continuously die off until they improve which would make the U.S. far less attractive which would lessen the amount of illegal and legal immigrants while improving a great amount of the world through a Capitalistic approach of supplying the demand for a safe, free place to live.

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. Some of the most notable is Florida.. There is no way we could afford an open door policy... However, I agree on making legal immigration an easier process and finding a workable solution to those who have been here a while and have made a life for themselves.. Right now America needs to close the borders and really take the time to fix the problems it has before it reopens them.  And there is also no way we could possibly ingest everyone who wants to leave their home nation, I really don't care to see the US population exceed 1 billion, 250 million is already over crowded. 3k to 4k = how many new apartment complexes a day? In 200 years what kind of environmental effect do you think that would have?.. To put this in prespective, go outside and see how far you can look without seeing trash on the ground, or take a drive and see how far you can go before you don't see any trash on the ground.

America's 2nd Largest river that feeds many of US central river systems is nearing what they cal ecological collapse in some areas do to pollution, development, over fishing, and over population.

Wiki:

QuoteBiologists from state and federal agencies have warned since the 1970s and 1980s that the build-up of silt and sand will completely destroy the Upper Mississippi River's ecosystem if it is not stopped. However, the expansion of the commercial navigation system is still being pursued due to commercial interests. Biologists warn that an ecological collapse would likely occur of the Upper Mississippi River if the current systems expand or even just continue as is.

And it Gets worse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29)
http://act.americanrivers.org/site/DocS ... ?docID=692 (http://act.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/mississippi.pdf?docID=692)

Florida
http://fl.audubon.org/PDFs/pubs_policyd ... t_main.pdf (http://fl.audubon.org/PDFs/pubs_policydocs-florida_bay_report_main.pdf)

If you doubled the US population for Example, it would have a drastic effect on the local environment and even possibly induce various ecological collapses or further dead zones.

Some other resources on Americas Habitats:

http://www.fws.gov/birds/documents/HabitatLoss.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/birds/documents/HabitatLoss.pdf)
http://www.landscope.org/explore/threats/habitat/ (http://www.landscope.org/explore/threats/habitat/)
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/walsh.html (http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/walsh.html)
http://www.carryingcapacity.org/DinAlt.htm (http://www.carryingcapacity.org/DinAlt.htm)

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Your condescending language needs to stop. Thinking you're more informed than another is the worst position to be in if your goal is to honestly discover the truth. Almost all of your language so far has been the condescending "I know more than you know, because if you knew as much as I knew you'd take my position." Which is total bullshit, dishonest, illogical and useless. Please can we just have a rational discussion? Just because someone doesn't take the same view as you do, doesn't mean that they're less informed than you or anything else, it just means they've come to a different conclusion than you. Even if someone is less informed than thou art, it doesn't mean you get to automatically be right, reality doesn't work like that. So just stop that, I don't care if you think it, but please be honest and logical in responses.

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

Quote from: "TheJackel"California has been constantly building new schools for example..It does lead to unnecessary urban development and the disappearance of our natural habitats. Some of the most notable is Florida.. There is no way we could afford an open door policy... However, I agree on making legal immigration an easier process and finding a workable solution to those who have been here a while and have made a life for themselves.. Right now America needs to close the borders and really take the time to fix the problems it has before it reopens them.  And there is also no way we could possibly ingest everyone who wants to leave their home nation, I really don't care to see the US population exceed 1 billion, 250 million is already over crowded. 3k to 4k = how many new apartment complexes a day? In 200 years what kind of environmental effect do you think that would have?.. To put this in prespective, go outside and see how far you can look without seeing trash on the ground, or take a drive and see how far you can go before you don't see any trash on the ground.

America's 2nd Largest river that feeds many of US central river systems is nearing what they cal ecological collapse in some areas do to pollution, development, over fishing, and over population.

Wiki:

QuoteBiologists from state and federal agencies have warned since the 1970s and 1980s that the build-up of silt and sand will completely destroy the Upper Mississippi River's ecosystem if it is not stopped. However, the expansion of the commercial navigation system is still being pursued due to commercial interests. Biologists warn that an ecological collapse would likely occur of the Upper Mississippi River if the current systems expand or even just continue as is.

And it Gets worse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29)
http://act.americanrivers.org/site/DocS ... ?docID=692 (http://act.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/mississippi.pdf?docID=692)

Florida
http://fl.audubon.org/PDFs/pubs_policyd ... t_main.pdf (http://fl.audubon.org/PDFs/pubs_policydocs-florida_bay_report_main.pdf)

If you doubled the US population for Example, it would have a drastic effect on the local environment and even possibly induce various ecological collapses or further dead zones.

Some other resources on Americas Habitats:

http://www.fws.gov/birds/documents/HabitatLoss.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/birds/documents/HabitatLoss.pdf)
http://www.landscope.org/explore/threats/habitat/ (http://www.landscope.org/explore/threats/habitat/)
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/walsh.html (http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/walsh.html)

.

Maybe we should see how other countries with more than 10x the people per square ft do things and do it that way instead of acting like we have it bad.

You know what this thread needs?  An adorable puppy.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv23%2Fpinkocommie%2Fdog-cute-baby.jpg&hash=ffdef96d72989245ba3fb9a461de44c33ba5dbe4)

Yay!  

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The only real solution to illegal immigration is to stabilize Mexico.  People don't often leave their homeland unless the circumstances compel it.

That is up the the Mexicans, and you can't expect us to become the Wellfare bank for another country. Especially a country that would likely just take the money and pocket it.

I'm unsure where you got the idea that that was my gist.  My circumspect language is clear.

Also, it should be pointed out that people are required in California to present a government-issue ID card at any request from a peace officer.  The only reason why this doesn't result in co-operation with ICE is because many cities are so-called "sanctuary cities."  The newly-amended law doesn't seem to deviate from that standard, with the exception of requiring follow-up reporting.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"You know what this thread needs?  An adorable puppy.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv23%2Fpinkocommie%2Fdog-cute-baby.jpg&hash=ffdef96d72989245ba3fb9a461de44c33ba5dbe4)

Yay!   :bananacolor:

QuoteMaybe we should see how other countries with more than 10x the people per square ft do things and do it that way instead of acting like we have it bad.

Sure, take Africa for example and ask why so many people are starving, and what happened to the majority of the rain forests that covered the continent. Or we can ask why that majority of the population in China is poor and starving.. And I really don't think people like being packed in like sardines into apartments the size of a closet. And no other country has 10x the populous considering the US has the 3rd largest population in the world.. At most is 3.5 X's.. And unlike many of them, here more people = urban expansion.  

And a key not of difference:

Asia: (17,212,000 sq mi). Population, 3,879,000,000 (225 ppl per sq mi)
North America:  (9,540,000 sq mi). Population, 528,720,588 (55 ppl per sq mi)

Now Minus the Area of Canada and the United States = 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 309 million people.. Minus the Area of Alaska 656,425 square mile and 400,000 people.. This Gives the Lower 48 states:

Area (3,133,575 sq mi.) and roughly 308 million people according to real time population clock. (98.29 people per sq mi) And this doesn't include 3k to 4k immigrants a day, or minus the amount of land that ought to be preserved for wild life, and natural habitat..  So with only 308 million people we are roughly near half the number of people per square mile than the entire Asian Continent that has 5x's the land mass area.. If we had 618 million people we would equal or exceed the population density of Asia with less than 3x's the populous. Thus with 5x's less Area you can expect some severe consequences on the environment, especially in an urban Nation like the United States. Sorry, I don't feel like we should turn the united states into a giant parking lot.

In my opinion:
The amount of land that should be for natural habitat should be like (85%). However for giggles, I will even low ball it to 70%.. So 940,072 sq mi is what should be left for human habitation to retain an excellent balance.. That's 372 people per sq mile with 308 million people, This in my opinion shows that we are already over populated.

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"You know what this thread needs?  An adorable puppy.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv23%2Fpinkocommie%2Fdog-cute-baby.jpg&hash=ffdef96d72989245ba3fb9a461de44c33ba5dbe4)

Yay!   :bananacolor:

LOL Cuteness ..

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteMaybe we should see how other countries with more than 10x the people per square ft do things and do it that way instead of acting like we have it bad.

Sure, take Africa for example and ask why so many people are starving, and what happened to the majority of the rain forests that covered the continent. Or we can ask why that majority of the population in China is poor and starving.. And I really don't think people like being packed in like sardines into apartments the size of a closet. And no other country has 10x the populous considering the US has the 3rd largest population in the world.. At most is 3.5 X's.. And unlike many of them, here more people = urban expansion.

I had just shown that England has 10x the population density. And the U.S. isn't the only country experiencing growth. The United States is ranked 131 out of 232 with an annual population growth of 0.97%. Granted England's population growth is 0.42%, they already have more than ten times the population density of the U.S.. While I do think people as a whole should be having fewer babies, the U.S. is not near the danger zone as most other countries.

Quote from: "TheJackel"And a key not of difference:

Asia: (17,212,000 sq mi). Population, 3,879,000,000 (225 ppl per sq mi)

Asia isn't a country.

Quote from: "TheJackel"North America:  (9,540,000 sq mi). Population, 528,720,588 (55 ppl per sq mi)

Now Minus the Area of Canada and the United States = 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 309 million people.. Minus the Area of Alaska 656,425 square mile and 400,000 people.. This Gives the Lower 48 states:

Area (3,133,575 sq mi.) and roughly 308 million people according to real time population clock. (98.29 people per sq mi)

Why did you take off Alaska from land available to the U.S.? BTW even with that, England still has more than 10 times the population per square mile.

Quote from: "TheJackel"And this doesn't include 3k to 4k immigrants a day, or minus the amount of land that ought to be preserved for wild life, and natural habitat..

What 3k - 4k immigrants? Best estimates I've seen come from this dhs study (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf) which states an estimated average change of +250,000 a year making it about 685 a day. At least illegal immigrants. If you add in legal immigrants (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/natz_fr_2009.pdf) you get closer to 3k by adding 2038 a day you get about 2723 day. But not near 4k a day. I'll give you that your guess is only of by 10 (3k) to 32% (4k), but it works much better if you try to be as accurate as possible providing where you got the numbers so it doesn't look like you pulled them out of your ass. Illegal immigration only increasing the population by 685 a day Vs. legal immigration increasing the population by 2038 a day, so if overpopulation is your issue, then to you legal immigration is a 3x bigger problem for our country.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So with only 309 million people we are roughly near half the number of people per square mile than the entire Asian Continent that has 5x's the land mass area. If we had 618 million people we would equal or exceed the population density of Asia with less than 3x's the populous. Thus with 5x's less Area you can expect some severe consequences on the environment, especially in an urban Nation like the United States. Sorry, I don't feel like we should turn the united states into a giant parking lot.

Right, because other countries with 10x the amount of people per square mile have no national preserves. Just stating that having less land mass means there are going to be environmental consequences doesn't make it so, if you want to even attempt to convince any rational person, you need to explain how and why. Which would also explain why England with even less land mass but a much higher population density is doing better than China in regards to standards of living. Quit making these ("Sorry, I don't feel like we should turn the united states into a giant parking lot.") extreme statements when the opponent isn't even suggesting anything close to that, it would be like me saying; "85% of the land should be preserved? Sorry I don't feel like murdering millions of people."

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"You know what this thread needs?  An adorable puppy.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv23%2Fpinkocommie%2Fdog-cute-baby.jpg&hash=ffdef96d72989245ba3fb9a461de44c33ba5dbe4)

Yay!   :bananacolor:

Cute. Do they have papers?

Rambo (the kitty) did lol

QuoteI had just shown that England has 10x the population density. And the U.S. isn't the only country experiencing growth. The United States is ranked 131 out of 232 with an annual population growth of 0.97%. Granted England's population growth is 0.42%, they already have more than ten times the population density of the U.S.. While I do think people as a whole should be having fewer babies, the U.S. is not near the danger zone as most other countries.

England isn't even the size of Minnesota Davin.. I'm going by land mass, and we could just as easily pack that many people into equal sized area to that of England and exceed it.. I am comparing the Entire Area of Asia with the United states lower 48.. I removed Alaska because it's mostly wild life refuge, and that I doubt the majority will want to live in that climate.   And England's population is 50 million for 50 thousand square miles packed into cities like sardines compared to Minnesota that is 86 thousand square miles and losing the environmental battle on the Mississippi River, and possibly the Timber Wolf population with just 5 million people.

http://www.biodiversityislife.net/?q=node/276 (http://www.biodiversityislife.net/?q=node/276)
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_ ... 10310.aspx (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2010/110310.aspx)

QuoteThe Lost Life report highlights how habitat loss, inappropriate management, environmental pollution and pressure from non-native species have all played a part in the erosion of England’s biodiversity. All of the major groups of flora and fauna have experienced losses, with butterflies, amphibians, and many plant and other insect species being particularly hard hit â€" in some groups up to a quarter of species have been become extinct since 1800.

Yeah, let's not be like England when it comes to environmental issues, and loss of habitat.. Sadly Minnesota having only 5 million people is resulting in severe consequences on the environment. And you're right, The US isn't in that major Danger Zone of total ecological collapse just yet, and we would like to keep it from ever getting there!

QuoteAsia isn't a country.

Where exactly did I say Asia was a country :idea:

QuoteWhy did you take off Alaska from land available to the U.S.? BTW even with that, England still has more than 10 times the population per square mile.

1) I removed both the populous and area
2) Climate VS Populous shows such climate regions are not in the Central climate regions where most of the worlds population tends to live.
3) Alaska is one of the few wild life refuges or places largely untouched by humans..
4) How much farming can you do in Alaska? Or how much of Alaska has roads, sea ports, ectra? Should we pave over that too?

QuoteWhat 3k - 4k immigrants? Best estimates I've seen come from this dhs study (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf) which states an estimated average change of +250,000 a year making it about 685 a day. At least illegal immigrants. If you add in legal immigrants (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/natz_fr_2009.pdf) you get closer to 3k by adding 2038 a day you get about 2723 day. But not near 4k a day. I'll give you that your guess is only of by 10 (3k) to 32% (4k), but it works much better if you try to be as accurate as possible providing where you got the numbers so it doesn't look like you pulled them out of your ass. Illegal immigration only increasing the population by 685 a day Vs. legal immigration increasing the population by 2038 a day, so if overpopulation is your issue, then to you legal immigration is a 3x bigger problem for our country.

We will take your numbers for giggles, and then include avg birth rates, and avg death rates.. Find those statistics and then do a 100 year projection.. Hence, why we should close the borders..  

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg
http://www.npg.org/Assets/Images/usprojgrowth.jpg

QuoteRight, because other countries with 10x the amount of people per square mile have no national preserves. Just stating that having less land mass means there are going to be environmental consequences doesn't make it so,

 :brick:

Quoteif you want to even attempt to convince any rational person, you need to explain how and why.

Rational person looks to see what will effect the big picture down the road.. And your England Example was a perfect example of what we DON'T WANT..

QuoteWhich would also explain why England with even less land mass but a much higher population density is doing better than China in regards to standards of living.

Cramming 50 million people in England to which results in 0.6% of Natural Habitat to me isn't increasing a standard of living much less an example to follow when it comes to doing better in regards to population density.

QuoteQuit making these ("Sorry, I don't feel like we should turn the united states into a giant parking lot.") extreme statements when the opponent isn't even suggesting anything close to that, it would be like me saying; "85% of the land should be preserved? Sorry I don't feel like murdering millions of people."

Who said anything about randomly committing Genocide? Ever here of 0 population growth?  Eventually this planet is going to reach a breaking point to where it can no longer support the human species.. You think population isn't a problem now, imagine what 26 billion people on this planet would be like. Nobody thinks ahead apparently.. And who said we have to let all these people into America?

I think his point is that given our relatively low density, and the ability of high-density countries to cope, render your concerns understandable, even at points agreeable, but overstated.  

As a former member of ZPG, I agree with your assessment of population as a primary concern for our survival's sake.  However, this is not an addition to total population but merely a shifting of population, rendering this particular objection moot.

Myself, as an American, I take it as a compliment to us that we remain to many "the city on the hill", at least in secular terms.  I just wish they'd check in before moving in.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think his point is that given our relatively low density, and the ability of high-density countries to cope, render your concerns understandable, even at points agreeable, but overstated.  

As a former member of ZPG, I agree with your assessment of population as a primary concern for our survival's sake.  However, this is not an addition to total population but merely a shifting of population, rendering this particular objection moot.

Myself, as an American, I take it as a compliment to us that we remain to many "the city on the hill", at least in secular terms.  I just wish they'd check in before moving in.

Shifting Population does not make the objection moot because we are talking about local environmental impacts and not just Global. Since we are talking about immigration and population impacts in the United States, my objection is relevant. And it's also not just about Human survival or over stating the need to protect the environment, it is also the notion that People would like to enjoy the natural habitats, go fishing, or go on camping trips without seeing them vanish, polluted, or paved over to make way for the out of control human population growth... The human population may be able to cope with high density, but the natural habitats can not and are taking huge hits because of it. There is absolutely no reason why we can't control immigration to help keep a balance.  And this is why I stated Davin's England example as a prime example of what we don't want to happen. IF you took England's example and applied it to Brazil for example, I can only imagine the Global impact that would have. By 2050 the projected US population is over 450 million and can only clime faster as the populous increases..  

So I would suggest we enjoy what's left of America before it turns into a giant parking lot where you can only see the bears, wolves, owl ectra in the zoo. Seriously, America needs to wake up and ensure the preservation of it's lands and wild life so it's there for generations there after.. I'm almost sad to even think what it will look like 300 years from now..

Quote from: "TheJackel"Shifting Population does not make the objection moot because we are talking about local environmental impacts and not just Global. Since we are talking about immigration and population impacts in the United States, my objection is relevant.

Yeah, I'm not arguing otherwise.  Certainly there are (and will continue to be) local variations in environmental impact. As I wrote, it seems to me that you are overstating the immediate environmental danger, as has been demonstrated.

QuoteAnd it's also not just about Human survival or over stating the need to protect the environment, it is also the notion that People would like to enjoy the natural habitats, go fishing, or go on camping trips without seeing them vanish, polluted, or paved over to make way for the out of control human population growth...

Ascribing these depredations to illegal aliens is disingenuous, as the pollution and depredation are largely caused by the pursuit of the mineral resources which feed the modern industrial society.  Those depredations -- say, gold-mining in the Black Hills, or the rigs off my pretty little section of the coast -- would be there no matter what the flow of illegal immigrants might be.

QuoteThe human population may be able to cope with high density, but the natural habitats can not and are taking huge hits because of it.

Agreed.  All the more reason to make sure that the steps we take actually address the problem as delineated.

QuoteThere is absolutely no reason why we can't control immigration to help keep a balance.  And this is why I stated Davin's England example as a prime example of what we don't want to happen. IF you took England's example and applied it to Brazil for example, I can only imagine the Global impact that would have. By 2050 the projected US population is over 450 million and can only clime faster as the populous increases..

Certainly we don't want that to happen, but again, the solution lies in the greening of energy.  Even if we stopped all immigration, legal and illegal, we'd still have strip-mining, deforestation, aquifer pollution, and so on, because those processes are fed not by the population base, but by the modern economy.

QuoteSo I would suggest we enjoy what's left of America before it turns into a giant parking lot where you can only see the bears, wolves, owl ectra in the zoo. Seriously, America needs to wake up and ensure the preservation of it's lands and wild life so it's there for generations there after.. I'm almost sad to even think what it will look like 300 years from now..

The disappearance of wildland is saddening.  All the more reason to address it with appropriate measures, rather than ascribing it all to those pesky illegals.

I hike and cycle regularly.  The people I meet on the trails are almost invariably white and middle-class, not evidently immigrants.  In order to attain internal coherence, you should advocate for the restriction of all access to wildland, rather than propose a solution that doesn't address the problem.

QuoteYeah, I'm not arguing otherwise.  Certainly there are (and will continue to be) local variations in environmental impact. As I wrote, it seems to me that you are overstating the immediate environmental danger, as has been demonstrated.

I don't think there is immediate danger except in certain areas like Northern Mississippi, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi dumps out.. I don't think I have suggested It was all immediate but rather something that concerns me and why I think America needs strong immigration control.. These are just areas I want people to consider and seriously think about because many people only think about the human element while ignoring the impacts they have on the natural habitats.

QuoteAscribing these depredations to illegal aliens is disingenuous, as the pollution and depredation are largely caused by the pursuit of the mineral resources which feed the modern industrial society.  Those depredations -- say, gold-mining in the Black Hills, or the rigs off my pretty little section of the coast -- would be there no matter what the flow of illegal immigrants might be.

This concerns all immigration and population growth in general.. I only stated this as a concern because immigration does indeed have such impacts whether or not you want to address it or not. Yes, your examples show the other aspect of human impacts on the environment that ought to equally be addressed.. And again, this is only one of the reasons why we should control the borders, it's just this subject has become the focus of discussion atm..

QuoteAgreed.  All the more reason to make sure that the steps we take actually address the problem as delineated.

I wouldn't disagree here.. And I think closing the borders is a logical step amongst many others that need to be taken to protect the habitats and wildlife here in the States.

QuoteCertainly we don't want that to happen, but again, the solution lies in the greening of energy.  Even if we stopped all immigration, legal and illegal, we'd still have strip-mining, deforestation, aquifer pollution, and so on, because those processes are fed not by the population base, but by the modern economy.

I'm with you there 100% Green energy is a huge key to preservation, and I would say that and human encroachment are typically the largest players.. Logging is the other problem we need to resolve. Population based is the sectioning or segmenting of wild habitat, and the fact that many species will avoid human contact. But overall, I agree 100% with your statement above.

QuoteThe disappearance of wildland is saddening.  All the more reason to address it with appropriate measures, rather than ascribing it all to those pesky illegals.

QuoteI hike and cycle regularly.  The people I meet on the trails are almost invariably white and middle-class, not evidently immigrants.  In order to attain internal coherence, you should advocate for the restriction of all access to wildland, rather than propose a solution that doesn't address the problem.

I don't think you need to restrict all access, but enforce the need to take care of them and to respect them.. Education is key along with very heavy fines for breaking park rules.Hence thanks to Heavy fines and enforcement the spread of the Eurasian Milfoil in Minnesota's lakes have been reduced but the war isn't over. Here is a Map regarding Milfoil across the United States: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/ ... spica.html (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/my_spica.html) ..Lake Michigan being hit the Hardest suggests ground Zero. And the only reason it's been contained in Minnesota is because of strong enforcement.. Many communities have people that will not let you put your boat in the water without being thoroughly checked and sprayed.  And if you go along to Sun City Arizona, the highways are what we call the trash ways and junkyard roads. And it's not just illegals but everyone :sigh:

Personally I think it should be law that everyone 16 and older that is able ought to have to serve 10 hours a month in community service unpaid to clean up, and pick up human garbage. But, that is just my opinion that we need to enforce ourselves to take responsibility for the environment.. I was thinking of starting a nation wide volunteer program to where everyone could help clean up their local parks, and wild life reserves. This is something I have been considering to do here in MA.

Quote from: "TheJackel"England isn't even the size of Minnesota Davin.. I'm going by land mass, and we could just as easily pack that many people into equal sized area to that of England and exceed it.. I am comparing the Entire Area of Asia with the United states lower 48..

Ok so your comparison between Asia and the the continental U.S. is ok, but my comparison between all of the U.S. and England is not... because you're comparing by land mass... you make no sense.

Quote from: "TheJackel"I removed Alaska because it's mostly wild life refuge, and that I doubt the majority will want to live in that climate.

Then why didn't you remove Hawaii's 1159 square miles and it's 1,295,178 people? Which would have made your example the "lower 48" instead of every state except Alaska. And Hawaii with all those people packed like sardines, no one wants to go there because it's so horrible and the environment is just totally shot to shit.

Quote from: "TheJackel"And England's population is 50 million for 50 thousand square miles packed into cities like sardines compared to Minnesota that is 86 thousand square miles and losing the environmental battle on the Mississippi River, and possibly the Timber Wolf population with just 5 million people.

http://www.biodiversityislife.net/?q=node/276 (http://www.biodiversityislife.net/?q=node/276)
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_ ... 10310.aspx (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2010/110310.aspx)

QuoteThe Lost Life report highlights how habitat loss, inappropriate management, environmental pollution and pressure from non-native species have all played a part in the erosion of England’s biodiversity. All of the major groups of flora and fauna have experienced losses, with butterflies, amphibians, and many plant and other insect species being particularly hard hit â€" in some groups up to a quarter of species have been become extinct since 1800.

Yeah, let's not be like England when it comes to environmental issues, and loss of habitat.. Sadly Minnesota having only 5 million people is resulting in severe consequences on the environment. And you're right, The US isn't in that major Danger Zone of total ecological collapse just yet, and we would like to keep it from ever getting there!

So it's not because of the population, it's because of bad choices? Are you trying to support your argument that immigration must lead to environmental problems or what?

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

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteAsia isn't a country.

Where exactly did I say Asia was a country :idea:

Quote from: "TheJackel"And no other country has 10x the populous considering the US has the 3rd largest population in the world.. At most is 3.5 X's.. At most is 3.5 X's.. And unlike many of them, here more people = urban expansion.

And a key not of difference:

Asia: (17,212,000 sq mi). Population, 3,879,000,000 (225 ppl per sq mi)
North America: (9,540,000 sq mi). Population, 528,720,588 (55 ppl per sq mi)

Now Minus the Area of Canada and the United States = 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 309 million people.. Minus the Area of Alaska 656,425 square mile and 400,000 people.. This Gives the Lower 48 states:

Why compare a country to the major part of a continent right after saying no country has 10x the populous of the U.S., after I had just shown that England has 10x the population density?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteWhy did you take off Alaska from land available to the U.S.? BTW even with that, England still has more than 10 times the population per square mile.

1) I removed both the populous and area
2) Climate VS Populous shows such climate regions are not in the Central climate regions where most of the worlds population tends to live.
3) Alaska is one of the few wild life refuges or places largely untouched by humans..
4) How much farming can you do in Alaska? Or how much of Alaska has roads, sea ports, ectra? Should we pave over that too?

You compared the land mass of several countries after to two countries, then cut off a good portion of the U.S. for what reason? Because you decided that most people wouldn't want to live there? Why not find out all the land mass of everywhere people are unlikely to want to live and subtract that from every where instead of making it look like you're unscrupulously manipulating numbers in favour of your argument. How disingenuous can you get?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteWhat 3k - 4k immigrants? Best estimates I've seen come from this dhs study (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf) which states an estimated average change of +250,000 a year making it about 685 a day. At least illegal immigrants. If you add in legal immigrants (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/natz_fr_2009.pdf) you get closer to 3k by adding 2038 a day you get about 2723 day. But not near 4k a day. I'll give you that your guess is only of by 10 (3k) to 32% (4k), but it works much better if you try to be as accurate as possible providing where you got the numbers so it doesn't look like you pulled them out of your ass. Illegal immigration only increasing the population by 685 a day Vs. legal immigration increasing the population by 2038 a day, so if overpopulation is your issue, then to you legal immigration is a 3x bigger problem for our country.

We will take your numbers for giggles, and then include avg birth rates, and avg death rates.. Find those statistics and then do a 100 year projection.. Hence, why we should close the borders..  

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg
http://www.npg.org/Assets/Images/usprojgrowth.jpg

We're talking about illegal immigration and you provided a guess with a huge margin of error without providing where you got those numbers from or what they represented... now you're talking about all population growth? So now you're against even legal immigration?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteRight, because other countries with 10x the amount of people per square mile have no national preserves. Just stating that having less land mass means there are going to be environmental consequences doesn't make it so,

 :brick:

So it's not the high population that's making people give up national preserves it's another reason. Right, my point is made.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quoteif you want to even attempt to convince any rational person, you need to explain how and why.

Rational person looks to see what will effect the big picture down the road.. And your England Example was a perfect example of what we DON'T WANT..

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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteWhich would also explain why England with even less land mass but a much higher population density is doing better than China in regards to standards of living.

Cramming 50 million people in England to which results in 0.6% of Natural Habitat to me isn't increasing a standard of living much less an example to follow when it comes to doing better in regards to population density.

Yeah, like Hawaii, people there are suffering and no one ever wants to visit that crappy place that has a higher population density than England with 1117 people per square mile and with hardly any national parks. Again, the point is there are other reasons that are why the environment is being destroyed and population isn't a major one because many places deal with high amounts of people without destroying their environment. Yes I agree that England had sacrificed natural preserves, but they still have more than 10x the amount of population density as we do, we can protect the wildlife and increase the population. All I'm saying is that your doomsday immigration is going to destroy the environment pulled from your ass idea, right now doesn't make sense without you explaining how and why.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteQuit making these ("Sorry, I don't feel like we should turn the united states into a giant parking lot.") extreme statements when the opponent isn't even suggesting anything close to that, it would be like me saying; "85% of the land should be preserved? Sorry I don't feel like murdering millions of people."

Who said anything about randomly committing Genocide?

Exactly, who said anything about turning the U.S. into a parking lot? The point is that you keep making stupid statements that no one else has even hinted at. I'm just pointing out how stupid your extreme statements are.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Ever here of 0 population growth?  Eventually this planet is going to reach a breaking point to where it can no longer support the human species.. You think population isn't a problem now, imagine what 26 billion people on this planet would be like. Nobody thinks ahead apparently..

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

Quote from: "TheJackel"And who said we have to let all these people into America?

No one said we have to let all these people into the country.

Quote from: "TheJackel"I don't think there is immediate danger except in certain areas like Northern Mississippi, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi dumps out.. I don't think I have suggested It was all immediate but rather something that concerns me and why I think America needs strong immigration control.. These are just areas I want people to consider and seriously think about because many people only think about the human element while ignoring the impacts they have on the natural habitats.

That is largely irrelevant, because those people would have a deleterious environmental impact no matter where they were living.  Environmental issues do not respect maplines.

QuoteThis concerns all immigration and population growth in general.. I only stated this as a concern because immigration does indeed have such impacts whether or not you want to address it or not. Yes, your examples show the other aspect of human impacts on the environment that ought to equally be addressed.. And again, this is only one of the reasons why we should control the borders, it's just this subject has become the focus of discussion atm..

I know it has many different impacts.  It's just that you've yet to show that immigrants, legal or illegal, have a larger palpable impact on the environment than do natives.  You also haven't shown how keeping Mexicans in, say, Tijuana helps when their sewage still pollutes the waters there.  The acid rain issue of the late 70s-early80s Southeastern Canada, showed how pollution is international.

QuoteI wouldn't disagree here.. And I think closing the borders is a logical step amongst many others that need to be taken to protect the habitats and wildlife here in the States.

I can think of more efficacious laws, such as raising the price to visit particularly fragile parks or mandating higher CAFE standards for auto manufacturers.

QuoteI don't think you need to restrict all access, but enforce the need to take care of them and to respect them.. Education is key along with very heavy fines for breaking park rules.

Do you have data indicating that immigrants are disproportionately responsible for degradation of our national parks?

QuoteHence thanks to Heavy fines and enforcement the spread of the Eurasian Milfoil in Minnesota's lakes have been reduced but the war isn't over. Here is a Map regarding Milfoil across the United States: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/ ... spica.html (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/my_spica.html) ..Lake Michigan being hit the Hardest suggests ground Zero. And the only reason it's been contained in Minnesota is because of strong enforcement.. Many communities have people that will not let you put your boat in the water without being thoroughly checked and sprayed.  And if you go along to Sun City Arizona, the highways are what we call the trash ways and junkyard roads. And it's not just illegals but everyone :)

At a quick glance that isn't a bad idea, but I'd have to sit down and give it a little thought before I answer more fully.

QuoteThen why is this being injected into a thread about Arizona's illegal immigration law?  Are illegal immigrants disproportionate polluters?

I believe this began around the notion where someone stated that we ought to let everyone come here that could possibly come here.. Hence, open border policy.. Besides that, over time immigrants do have an added impact proportionate on average to their populous. That's roughly 23 percent basing if we do equal distribution per person across the board. Now factor in how large those generations grow..They too have children correct? All I am saying is immigration does add a burden on the local environment, and I don't care to see Minnesota look like England... Now if they end up polluting their own homeland for example, it has no bearing on the preservation of the natural reserves in the united states unless their actions effect our local environment. So at this time I could say close the borders and have an effect on the rate of growth.. Yes or no?

And again this is just one of many other reasons discussed as to why we should close the borders..

And it would be nice to see stronger laws on various environmental related issues., but I don't think anyone but the rich could afford higher park rates, I would call those fragile environments closed to the public, and any sort of development .

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

Quote from: "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...

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "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.

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  :/

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

QuoteHow 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.

QuoteThey 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?

QuoteHere 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.

QuoteIt'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?

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Are you trying to argue populations have nothing to do with bad choices?

I clearly stated my position, can you even read?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteMy 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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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...

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteYeah, 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?

Quote from: "TheJackel"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?

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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).

Quote from: "TheJackel"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?

Quote from: "TheJackel"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?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteAre 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.

QuoteData, 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.

QuoteI'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.  

QuoteFalse.  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..

QuoteThere 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.  

QuoteAgain, 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..

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

QuoteNor 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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"No real American wants to live in a sardine can.

No real American wants to take away freedom.

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

QuoteNo, if you actually read what I typed then you'd have my position correct.

Lets back track shall we.

1)

QuoteI 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)

QuoteHere'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:

QuoteThough 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:

QuoteAs 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 (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/nnr/default.aspx)

QuoteThere 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.

QuoteI 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?

Quotewe 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.

QuoteNo 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..

double post edit

QuoteWhen 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.

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 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100624/ap_on_en_tv/us_immigration_take_our_jobs)

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.

Quote from: "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 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100624/ap_on_en_tv/us_immigration_take_our_jobs)

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..

Quote from: "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.

What? I've seen just as many lazy immigrants.. Though most I would say work really well, and very hard.. I don't know very many people that would even suggest otherwise and it really a moot point.. And if they are legal and a harder worker they deserve the job over some lazy worker. Also, there is nothing wrong with asking for time off, you can't expect people to be work slaves and not enjoy their life, family, and friends.. Many companies have paid vacation, and Legal Seafood's makes me take it.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteWhen 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.

I never stated it would completely repair our biodiversity, please read my above post in regards to Davin's.. Controlling immigration is a control point to which we should have absolute control over, and this is of course includes many other control points that effect our biodiversity.. America simply should never reach the point where they have to be like England to fight for every inch in order to save their habitats and biodiversity. It's simply food for thought that we ought not become like England and work on solutions that prevent that.. So open door policy definitely is not a smart choice, but a bad choice in this regard.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteNo, if you actually read what I typed then you'd have my position correct.

Lets back track shall we.

1)

QuoteI 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)

QuoteHere'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:

QuoteThough 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:

QuoteAs 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

Which is far different than:

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Which is why I said: No, if you actually read what I typed then you'd have my position correct.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

So England having more national park reserves percentage than America is England is doing it wrong compared to America. Of the 150 million acres of protected land and 58 national parks in the U.S., that only covers 8.6% of the US, compared to the 8.8% and (will be 10.1% this year) that England has protected. If you're saying that England is not the way we should go, then should we go the other way and start giving up our protected land? So how is the argument dishonest? When I listed the National Park Reserves of England, I also listed the years they were created, which shows that England has been protecting more and more land as time goes on instead of what you keep saying that they're losing more and more land.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

England may have made blunders in the past, but now they're ahead of the U.S.: higher population density and a higher percentage of land protected. My only point with this, is that your point that a higher population must mean poor conservation choices is not true based on a country with a higher population density preserving a higher percentage of land. That doesn't mean you should agree with me, it just means I have a case that disproves your point.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Concerning England's natural Reserves, here is where I got my information from:
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwor ... fault.aspx (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/nnr/default.aspx)

QuoteThere 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.

Interesting: "higher population never translates to high rise apartments vs urban sprawl" and by "never" I suppose you're excluding New York City, L.A., Phoenix and Seattle right? I only mention those because I've lived in and/or near each one of those cities which have high rise apartments due to the amount of people that want to be near the downtown area for jobs and other things. Now instead of just assuming something again, why don't you provide the numbers of growth in a city vs. it's suburbs and the amount of high rise apartments. Because without the data I can only take your point as yet another baseless assumption.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So I rejected your argument from which this all stems from Davin.

You can reject any argument you want, but assuming that any one's argument comes from me without them explicitly stating it is an assumption, you make a lot of them.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

If you read what I said, if we got to 1000 people per square mile, we'd have half of the worlds population. Given that last year about 750,000 legal immigrants came to the U.S. and 250,000 illegal immigrants, my "open door policy" wouldn't likely get too much more than that. It would take at least 100 years to double the population from immigration that way, let alone getting up to 1000 people per square mile. In the meantime, the countries they came from would either fix themselves or die off to be replaced until they're replaced by something better. Of course I don't really think that would work out like that, but I do think that making the process easier, cheaper and faster would at least make most of the illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and because we're already supporting that many, it wouldn't really be a problem.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

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

Quotewe 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.

Apparently you can't read and comprehend. Either that or you're taking what I said out of context intentionally to create a straw man. You kept saying that any increase in population results in giving up protected land, I responded to that by saying what you quoted. Was I saying that we should? No. If you notice really closely to the words, I typed "we can" which, despite you seemingly wishing it so, doesn't mean "we should." And not once did I even mention anything about fitting 3 billion people into anything the size of Wisconsin.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteNo 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.

You see TheJackel, those laws preventing people from doing "bad things" are in effect protecting the freedoms of others, the only way to protect the greatest amount of freedoms is to limit a few things that people can do. So in effect the laws protect more freedom than they take away. TheJackel, even in total anarchy there are consequences to ones actions, those are the things that happen after one performs an action. You see TheJackel, every action has a consequence, that consequence is good, bad or neutral.

Quote from: "TheJackel"however, federal laws are hardly unjust

I'm a let you finish, but let me just say that just because it's a federal law, doesn't mean that it's a just law. Making a law federal doesn't magically mean that it becomes just. If they made selling alcohol illegal on a federal level, that wouldn't make the law just, just now instead of regularly ridiculous it's federally ridiculous.

Quote from: "TheJackel", 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?

Don't know, and I don't care.

Quote from: "TheJackel"If I were to commit employment fraud, I would go straight to jail or pay a hefty fine.

Not if you weren't caught, the ones that get caught often face the same penalty; before deportation they serve time.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

If the immigration standards said no Brazilians are allowed into the country any more, would you still support it?
If the immigration standards said no poor people would you support that?
If the immigration standards said only men are allowed in would you support that?

Right now, with the cost of the system, it weeds out the poor people that can't afford it, because it takes a good understanding of the process it limits out those that are less educated and in third world countries, that's mostly women. Of course the racist thing isn't really true in any reasonable sense I can think of, I just think this: it's illegal so fuck 'em attitude might change a little bit if the immigration standards were clearly racist.

QuoteYou can reject any argument you want, but assuming that any one's argument comes from me without them explicitly stating it is an assumption, you make a lot of them.

As do you, especially considering urban sprawl.. Even California's projections show urban sprawling.. :/..

QuoteYou see TheJackel, those laws preventing people from doing "bad things" are in effect protecting the freedoms of others, the only way to protect the greatest amount of freedoms is to limit a few things that people can do. So in effect the laws protect more freedom than they take away.

No shit, really? And you say I have reading comprehension problems? Read my post above again and rethink your statement here. All you did here was reword my entire point.. Hence, there is only freedom of allowance, or what you are given freedom to do without legal consequence.. There is no such thing as true freedom..  And sorry, in Anarchy there is the much higher probability of no consequence.. Someone could kill someone else and just walk away without any investigation by a governing authority, or consequence. Yes there is always the probability of consequence, but in Anarchy whats to stop someone from randomly sniping people across the country for example? What law enforcement is going to go after them, investigate to find out who they are and where they are in a chaotic system? Thus, in a place of Anarchy you could snipe someone from 100 yards off a roof top without even being seen, or even possibly heard. Nor would you be having to worry about packing up and fleeing the scene to avoid capture. But I agree, there is always potential consequence, and that is why I positioned that freedom is subjective allowance. Your argument didn't change my points at all.

QuoteTheJackel, even in total anarchy there are consequences to ones actions, those are the things that happen after one performs an action. You see TheJackel, every action has a consequence, that consequence is good, bad or neutral.

So if I sniped someone from 100 yards at night from a roof top I would have a consequence to that action? Well firstly, no police would mean I wouldn't have to worry about fleeing or legal consequences correct? And in a City the echo of a single shot would make it impossible to figure out where it came from, especially if it were silenced. I could just walk away without consequence if I were some cold evil murderer that just randomly pops people off from a 100 yards. Hell, would an anarchy system even have news channels? And yes, there is always the probability of consequence..

QuoteI'm a let you finish, but let me just say that just because it's a federal law, doesn't mean that it's a just law. Making a law federal doesn't magically mean that it becomes just. If they made selling alcohol illegal on a federal level, that wouldn't make the law just, just now instead of regularly ridiculous it's federally ridiculous.

Let's play this game.. Are these laws just or unjust to which protect our Identities and borders?.. So instead of playing the passive argument that federal laws can be federally ridiculous, you can tell me why you think that fraud, employment fraud, and ID theft magically fit into that category of "federally ridiculous".. Otherwise don't bother making such a ridiculous argument.

QuoteDon't know, and I don't care.

Apparently you don't care, but many of us do. And those who become victims of those who break these laws care more than you obviously do.

QuoteNot if you weren't caught, the ones that get caught often face the same penalty; before deportation they serve time.

I don't even consider that prison time if they are just placed in holding till deportation, and that price is what they pay for just crossing the border knowing they could be deported.. Now if they are actually handed down a prison sentence for the Federal crimes they break, and then deported, it would still be a just ruling. They know the risks when crossing the border, these people make that choice. I wouldn't expect any less of a sentence for myself should I have been in the same position as an illegal alien.  

QuoteIf the immigration standards said no Brazilians are allowed into the country any more, would you still support it?

Why would it say no Brazilians? Are you trying to turn this argument into targeting of specific nationalities argument? Hence you are dishonestly trying to change the dynamics of this argument to suit your position?

QuoteIf the immigration standards said no poor people would you support that?
If the immigration standards said only men are allowed in would you support that?

Again you are dishonestly trying to change the dynamics of this argument.. Sounds like you are trying to play the anti-semetic position knowing the immigration standards don't specifically target people. Sure it could be miss-used to do so as any other law could be.. Lastly, you make this false argument knowing I wouldn't support specific targeting.. The way I look at it is that everyone has an equal chance of legally getting accepted to immigrate here through the legal channels. If you get denied, to bad, and we should have the right to control the flow of immigration whether or not you are Brazilian, Mexican, Egyptian, Asian, Korean, An Iranian, Australian, or some Irish person..

My parents could have been denied and I would still respect that..Hence, I could be in Brazil right now instead of the United States.. My life could be better or worse, but in either case it's not the United States job to take care of me, or even their obligation to accept me as an immigrant..

QuoteRight now, with the cost of the system, it weeds out the poor people that can't afford it, because it takes a good understanding of the process it limits out those that are less educated and in third world countries, that's mostly women. Of course the racist thing isn't really true in any reasonable sense I can think of, I just think this: it's illegal so fuck 'em attitude might change a little bit if the immigration standards were clearly racist.

They aren't clearly racist, if they were, there wouldn't be any Brazilians here, or even Muslims giving the fear mongering in the media.. And yet, here in Boston we a lot of legal Muslim immigrants who are very nice people. The Fuck them attitude is only the impolite way to say if you break the law, you are subject to it as much as I am.. Hence, if I were to break the law and get caught, Fuck me for breaking it.. Thus I deserve to be sentenced according to the law.

Now I agree that some laws are ridiculous, and in many countries the penalties are unfair or absurd.. You could attempt to argue that the penalties for breaking federal crimes is absurd or unfair.. But, you will need to come up with something you think is fair.. I came up with a pretty damn overly nice argument on what could be done to resolve many of the issues without deportation.. And I don't think illegals realize that they have the option to voice a means to broker a fair solution. However, many don't because that would involve taking responsibility for their actions vs just magically being granted amnesty with a free pass without resolving the problems to the system and other peoples lives to which they may have caused..

Although I have no desire to post to this topic any more, I find that even with some of the low blows that have been dealt (like, "apparently you can't read or comprehend" - and which I'm sure will not continue, right?), that this is a fascinating topic to read. I'm actually enjoying it. As long as the parties involved keep to the arguments at hand and away from ad homs, this will be a topic of considerable learning potential. This is a complex issue, with no easy explanations or answers, but one worth discussing.

Thanks to you all who have put much effort and thought into it.

Quote from: "TheJackel"However, countering your argument with England vs America..[Edited out for addressing a large chunk of text]

The England example is an example that even in high population densities, the people still preserve their land. I don't care to defend a position I don't hold.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteIf you read what I said, if we got to 1000 people per square mile, we'd have half of the worlds population. Given that last year about 750,000 legal immigrants came to the U.S. and 250,000 illegal immigrants, my "open door policy" wouldn't likely get too much more than that.

Here you don't even bother to think of people having children, and personally, that is way to many people coming here a year. Do these people locally consume and produce waste? How much do they add to local landfills?

Again, the example was a counter to your position, the posts are long enough and I'm not going to write something about every single possible counter example you might possibly give, so please stop saying things like "Here you don't even bother to think of people having children[...]" when you don't even know that I hadn't. I was talking about immigration, child birth is a different topic. I didn't mention the death rate either, that doesn't mean I didn't even think about it, it just means I didn't mention it and it has little to do with what I'm talking about.

Quote from: "TheJackel"At best, speculative conjecture..This is likely to occur regardless over time.

Yes, I accept it as merely speculative conjecture, never have I stated that it would work or ever said anything like "you're just ignoring the evidence" just because someone disagrees with it.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteApparently you can't read and comprehend. Either that or you're taking what I said out of context intentionally to create a straw man.

Uhh NO!, what you write is subjective to interpretation.

The point is that you keep arguing against things I don't say and say I say things completely different than what I said.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteYou kept saying that any increase in population results in giving up protected land, I responded to that by saying what you quoted. Was I saying that we should? No. If you notice really closely to the words, I typed "we can" which, despite you seemingly wishing it so, doesn't mean "we should."

Back peddling isn't going to help you here because realistically that can be interpreted as your point of view..Suggesting  "We Can" is more than suggestive enough to be interpreted in a context as "We Can so why not".. Your arguments had a very clear underlining tone to which highly suggests an open door policy or point of view.

That is in no way back peddling. For it to be back peddling, it would have to be a position I held, it wasn't a position I held. It was an example that counters what you stated.

Quote from: "TheJackel"I figured you were still talking about England.. For some reason I thought you meant England could have a population density of 3 billion.. If you were referring the the United states, I would then agree with your above statement.. However, That would be insane irregardless ..

Yes it would be insane.

Quote from: "TheJackel"No shit, really? [...]

They weren't intended to change your point on this, you said something very obvious, so I returned with something very obvious.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote

Quote from: "TheJackel"however, federal laws are hardly unjust

I'm a let you finish, but let me just say that just because it's a federal law, doesn't mean that it's a just law. Making a law federal doesn't magically mean that it becomes just. If they made selling alcohol illegal on a federal level, that wouldn't make the law just, just now instead of regularly ridiculous it's federally ridiculous.

Let's play this game.. Are these laws just or unjust to which protect our Identities and borders?.. So instead of playing the passive argument that federal laws can be federally ridiculous, you can tell me why you think that fraud, employment fraud, and ID theft magically fit into that category of "federally ridiculous".. Otherwise don't bother making such a ridiculous argument.

The statement is by no means a defense of fraud, identity theft and/or protecting borders, it's just a response to your blanket statement "federal laws are hardly unjust."

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteDon't know, and I don't care.

Apparently you don't care, but many of us do. And those who become victims of those who break these laws care more than you obviously do.

No, it's just I got bored of trying to point out to you yet another example of you arguing against something I didn't say.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteIf the immigration standards said no Brazilians are allowed into the country any more, would you still support it?

Why would it say no Brazilians? Are you trying to turn this argument into targeting of specific nationalities argument? Hence you are dishonestly trying to change the dynamics of this argument to suit your position?

No, I was just giving an example that if the policies were unjust, that although it wouldn't mean that we just get rid of it all together, we would change the polices.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteRight now, with the cost of the system, it weeds out the poor people that can't afford it, because it takes a good understanding of the process it limits out those that are less educated and in third world countries, that's mostly women. Of course the racist thing isn't really true in any reasonable sense I can think of, I just think this: it's illegal so fuck 'em attitude might change a little bit if the immigration standards were clearly racist.

They aren't clearly racist, if they were, there wouldn't be any Brazilians here, or even Muslims giving the fear mongering in the media.. And yet, here in Boston we a lot of legal Muslim immigrants who are very nice people. The Fuck them attitude is only the impolite way to say if you break the law, you are subject to it as much as I am.. Hence, if I were to break the law and get caught, Fuck me for breaking it.. Thus I deserve to be sentenced according to the law.

In Arizona, there is a law that says a home can't contain more than three dildoes, I would find it hard to believe that any one would think that fining a person for breaking this law would be at all reasonable. In Idaho there's a law that says a person younger than 16 can't masturbate, I'd think that people would have enough sense not to go around sending 14 year olds to Juvenile Detention just because they shook their third leg too much. The point I'm making is that just because it's a law, doesn't mean it's a just law. And just because someone breaks a law, doesn't mean they deserve punishment. The point of that is to have you only discuss why you support a law and not just say "they broke the law, they deserve to be punished." Unless you hold the position that each and every breach of each and every law demands punishment no matter how ridiculous the law is.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Now I agree that some laws are ridiculous, and in many countries the penalties are unfair or absurd.. You could attempt to argue that the penalties for breaking federal crimes is absurd or unfair.. But, you will need to come up with something you think is fair.. I came up with a pretty damn overly nice argument on what could be done to resolve many of the issues without deportation.. And I don't think illegals realize that they have the option to voice a means to broker a fair solution. However, many don't because that would involve taking responsibility for their actions vs just magically being granted amnesty with a free pass without resolving the problems to the system and other peoples lives to which they may have caused..

I agree with this, they need to reasonably pay for the harm they have caused. I only say reasonably because I wouldn't want to take more than a quarter of someone's income, especially if they're not making that much.

Most my problems with this discussion is what I have noted: that you keep arguing against things I have not ever stated was my position, you bring up other things into a point I'm making instead of addressing the point and you keep using condescending language. If all that stopped, we could have a much cleaner, more efficient and less messy argument. As it is right now, I can hardly even get out what my positions are because I'm mostly pointing out that you're arguing against things I haven't even said, and positions I don't hold. Sometimes people aren't against your position when they question you; sometimes they want to know more, know how it effects certain situations and/or many other possibilities.

Quote from: "McQ"Although I have no desire to post to this topic any more, I find that even with some of the low blows that have been dealt (like, "apparently you can't read or comprehend" - and which I'm sure will not continue, right?), that this is a fascinating topic to read. I'm actually enjoying it. As long as the parties involved keep to the arguments at hand and away from ad homs, this will be a topic of considerable learning potential. This is a complex issue, with no easy explanations or answers, but one worth discussing.

Thanks to you all who have put much effort and thought into it.

I have for most this discussion, been explaining all the various times that TheJackel had been asking me to defend positions I don't hold. it would be nice to get some kind of support for having an honest argument, not to just come in after pages of me asking TheJackel to stop doing it. Moderators had clearly been against the same kind of argument tactics that TheJackel is using when it concerned religious topics. I'm not bringing this up to defend my statement that you quoted, I'm bringing it up because I see a problem with not applying the same standards to all arguments. How can one say that a religious zealot can't do something when others are allowed to? In other threads TheJackel uses similar condescending language, however it's backed up with evidence, I don't have a problem with that. It's just when there's no evidence, there's no reason to assume that someone is ignoring it. I had refrained from using the same type of language that I kept asking TheJackel to stop using, however after several pages of TheJackel being allowed to use that type of language, I hardly think that now is the best time to come in and ask it all to stop just because I finally started to mimic it.

In short, I find there is a discrepancy here. We should hold all members to the same standards, not allow those who you stated that you agree with to go around doing that which has resulted in others being banned. If you like the argument, wouldn't it be a better argument if I wasn't constantly being asked to defend against things I didn't even say?

Now to defend my statement: it wasn't an ad hominem, I demonstrated several times where TheJackel had stated that I held a position I never even hinted that I held. TheJackel stated that he/she could read just fine but also wasn't intentionally creating straw mans. There are pages of evidence to support my position that there is a comprehension problem. So by all logical means, it wasn't an ad hominem.

 I hardly think it's any different than what TheJackel had been stating about me and others.

Quotewhen you don't even know that I hadn't. I was talking about immigration, child birth is a different topic. I didn't mention the death rate either, that doesn't mean I didn't even think about it, it just means I didn't mention it and it has little to do with what I'm talking about.

We are talking about the impacts of immigration on the United States. yes or no? bearing children has everything to do with the impacts immigration has on this Nation. Thus child birth is on topic in accordance to this discussion Davin. It has everything to do with population growth, consumption, waste, urban sprawl, potential loss of habitat ect.. 750,000 immigrants are bound to equally be in the process of reproduction as the rest of us are (yes this is being obvious, sorry).. I am trying to look at the overall big picture Davin.. So I don't think we are on the same page here. Thus think Butterfly Effect.

QuoteYes, I accept it as merely speculative conjecture, never have I stated that it would work or ever said anything like "you're just ignoring the evidence" just because someone disagrees with it.

What evidence have I ignored? I do believe I even stood corrected on some some evidence to which you accused me of intentionally manipulating vs realizing my sources were either out dated or my calculations were off.  50 million people in England need food, and they get it from farms either locally, or imported. I agreed with the fact that you can increase population density, but doesn't prevent urban sprawling. Also, here in America its not so easily done.. Hence, you would have to force people to give up their homes and properties to build high rise apartments and then make them live in them, It's not going to happen here in America any time soon. This is where I think you didn't listen to my argument. So I am looking at the reality of the situation and not basing it on a plausible answer to a problem that will also fail over time giving that population growth continues to grow.. It's like what will England do when it's Population exceeds 300 million? Population density is not going to make the need for food go away, or prevent small towns from growing.

QuoteThe point is that you keep arguing against things I don't say and say I say things completely different than what I said.

Again, your arguments are subject to interpretation.. It's like you make arguments and then expect that everyone is going to not read into them.. Many of your arguments can be considered very suggestive.. Using "We can" for example can be read into as suggesting we should even if you don't specifically state that "we should". If you are just making counter arguments for the sake of making them, then all you are doing is trying to pick an argument without even clearly stating your actual position. Really, how do you expect people to read "We can" and not have it come off as seemingly stating a position?. The other cases seemingly come from not being on the same page because you are obviously seeing a different overall picture than I am in regards to this issue..  

QuoteYou kept saying that any increase in population results in giving up protected land, I responded to that by saying what you quoted. Was I saying that we should? No. If you notice really closely to the words, I typed "we can" which, despite you seemingly wishing it so, doesn't mean "we should."

No, I read into that as you being suggestive.. And my arguments never stated that increasing population meant giving up protected land (though it can, and in many cases does) vs simply giving up land. Building materials, and food don't come out of the sky. Nor do places to pile up our waste magically have infinite spatial volume. Yes, we can increase population density, but my argument has always been that this will not equate to the halting of urban sprawling, or loss of habitat. That's a fact, and it's greatly effected by the size of the population because population size effects how much environmental impact there will be. Efficiency to minimize habitat loss is best to be described as your counter argument.  And much of why England can increase it's Natural reserves is because it now imports much of everything it requires to function from other places like the United States. Hence, England is relying on other Nations resources even though I would say England still provides a good chunk of what they need themselves.. This is entirely contrasted compared to America (in terms of import and exportation of resources), and why your argument is unrealistic even though I agree that increasing population density is a logical temporary solution to the problem.. Hence, it's not going to resolve the fact that 46% of they worlds natural habitat is agriculture..  
 
Wiki:

QuoteOverpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources. It also depends on the way resources are used and distributed throughout the population If a given environment has a population of 10 individuals, but there is food or drinking water enough for only 9, then in a closed system where no trade is possible, that environment is overpopulated; if the population is 100 but there is enough food, shelter, and water for 200 for the indefinite future, then it is not overpopulated. Overpopulation can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates due to medical advances, from an increase in immigration, or from an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources. It is possible for very sparsely populated areas to be overpopulated, as the area in question may have a meager or non-existent capability to sustain human life (e.g. the middle of the Sahara Desert).

This sums up my argument nicely, and my stated position to which you perhaps either didn't get, or chose to ignore. Tossing out counter arguments in the form of population density is not going resolve the issue of habitat loss, and  environmental impacts what-so-ever. Immigration effects all these areas.. And where is America going to import resources from if it can't sustain itself while exporting to places that also can't sustain themselves?. So all I am asking you to do Davin is realize that there will without a doubt be major local environmental impacts here in the States is Immigration is not kept under control.

QuoteThat is in no way back peddling. For it to be back peddling, it would have to be a position I held, it wasn't a position I held. It was an example that counters what you stated.

So all you are doing then is just tossing around counter arguments for the sake of counter arguing without bothering to state a position.. We can or could do a lot of things, so what exactly is your position of what we should do then? What exactly is your position?  

QuoteYes it would be insane.

Agreed.. So we should have total control over immigration to helps us control it's impacts, and potential impacts.

QuoteThey weren't intended to change your point on this, you said something very obvious, so I returned with something very obvious.

Was redundancy to required? I don't think an obvious argument required to be made more obvious, thus a simple agreement would have sufficed since there is no point in making arguments just for the sake of making them.

QuoteThe statement is by no means a defense of fraud, identity theft and/or protecting borders, it's just a response to your blanket statement "federal laws are hardly unjust."

Then your entire counter argument was entirely irrelevant to the discussion and has no barring on the argument in regards to illegal immigration and the federal laws governing them.. Thus it appears you are tossing out irrelevant arguments just for the sake of arguing, and this is especially true after the fact that we had already covered this many pages back to where I replied that these Federal laws are not like some stupid law to which my state that it would be illegal to wear red shoes.. So why are you instigating useless irrelevant arguments?

So why would you bother to toss in the notion that "just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's illegal?".. So what exactly are you referring to, or trying to imply in regards to this and illegal immigration? It would be nice to get some clarification here, or maybe for you to actually state your position.

QuoteNo, it's just I got bored of trying to point out to you yet another example of you arguing against something I didn't say.

From what I can tell, most of what you say is suggestive and never clearly states your position.. So what are you trying to say? Clarify your position without using counter suggestive counter arguments.

QuoteIf the immigration standards said no Brazilians are allowed into the country any more, would you still support it?

This is a perfect example of a suggestive argument.. And completely irrelevant to what's being discussed. So what was your position or point here? What does this have to do with the impacts of immigration, or illegal immigration here in the United States when it clearly doesn't have anything to do with any of the immigration laws?

QuoteNo, I was just giving an example that if the policies were unjust, that although it wouldn't mean that we just get rid of it all together, we would change the polices.

Well, they aren't..So why are you bothering with this? It's not even worth arguing about because I think it would be obvious that if I thought a policy was unjust, I would consider it in need of being changed.. I don't find any policy thus far on the books in regards to immigration, or illegal immigration as unjust.. In fact our immigration policy is incredibly lenient compared to many other nations. So unless you want to discuss what exactly you think is unjust about our immigration laws, please don't bother tossing in circular arguments that don't pertain to the discussion. Otherwise it's suggestive in the way that I could mistaken your argument here as your position on the Federal laws governing our immigration policies.

QuoteIn Arizona, there is a law that says a home can't contain more than three dildoes, I would find it hard to believe that any one would think that fining a person for breaking this law would be at all reasonable. In Idaho there's a law that says a person younger than 16 can't masturbate, I'd think that people would have enough sense not to go around sending 14 year olds to Juvenile Detention just because they shook their third leg too much. The point I'm making is that just because it's a law, doesn't mean it's a just law. And just because someone breaks a law, doesn't mean they deserve punishment. The point of that is to have you only discuss why you support a law and not just say "they broke the law, they deserve to be punished." Unless you hold the position that each and every breach of each and every law demands punishment no matter how ridiculous the law is.

Again please note why this is irrelevant...

So I am going to ask you a simple question.. Are the Federal laws that protect our Identities, defend against fraud, or govern immigration unjust?  Yes, No?

QuoteMost my problems with this discussion is what I have noted: that you keep arguing against things I have not ever stated was my position, you bring up other things into a point I'm making instead of addressing the point and you keep using condescending language. If all that stopped, we could have a much cleaner, more efficient and less messy argument. As it is right now, I can hardly even get out what my positions are because I'm mostly pointing out that you're arguing against things I haven't even said, and positions I don't hold. Sometimes people aren't against your position when they question you; sometimes they want to know more, know how it effects certain situations and/or many other possibilities.

What we need to do is get on the same page, and the problem is that we seemingly have two different pictures in our heads on this subject that are not meshing well.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quotewhen you don't even know that I hadn't. I was talking about immigration, child birth is a different topic. I didn't mention the death rate either, that doesn't mean I didn't even think about it, it just means I didn't mention it and it has little to do with what I'm talking about.

We are talking about the impacts of immigration on the United States. yes or no? bearing children has everything to do with the impacts immigration has on this Nation. Thus child birth is on topic in accordance to this discussion Davin. It has everything to do with population growth, consumption, waste, urban sprawl, potential loss of habitat ect.. 750,000 immigrants are bound to equally be in the process of reproduction as the rest of us are (yes this is being obvious, sorry).. I am trying to look at the overall big picture Davin.. So I don't think we are on the same page here. Thus think Butterfly Effect.

Right... I was making a point, we can't always discuss things in the big picture. For you to assume I didn't think about something before making my statement is wrong, for you to discuss something other than my point is bad form and for you to not get that after I clearly explained it is simply amazing.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteYes, I accept it as merely speculative conjecture, never have I stated that it would work or ever said anything like "you're just ignoring the evidence" just because someone disagrees with it.

What evidence have I ignored?[edited for brevity]

I just said that I never had said anything like that. I would never say anything like that unless I presented evidence. When I present an argument from speculation, I accept it as speculation. As well as accepting any other point of view that counters it without the condescending language that you use when you have no evidence to support your speculation.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteThe point is that you keep arguing against things I don't say and say I say things completely different than what I said.

Again, your arguments are subject to interpretation..

Yes they are, however just because you can assume incorrectly doesn't mean that you're justified to do it.

Quote from: "TheJackel"It's like you make arguments and then expect that everyone is going to not read into them..

Reading into another's argument is a sure way to be wrong about their position. Just discuss what they say, not what you assume.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Many of your arguments can be considered very suggestive..

I'm not responsible for another's assumptions, only what I say. It's unreasonable for you to assume something different than what another person said, then blame them for your assumption.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteYou kept saying that any increase in population results in giving up protected land, I responded to that by saying what you quoted. Was I saying that we should? No. If you notice really closely to the words, I typed "we can" which, despite you seemingly wishing it so, doesn't mean "we should."

No, I read into that as you being suggestive.. And my arguments never stated that increasing population meant giving up protected land (though it can, and in many cases does) vs simply giving up land.

Well stop reading into it as me being suggestive and take it for what it says. Honestly how can I reasonably predict what you will assume about what I say? I can't find anyway to be sure about what you'll assume about what I say, so how about this: you just discuss what I say. You stated and we discussed about how higher populations meant destroying the environment and listed off many things talking about protected land and quite a bit about how England doesn't protect their natural habitats. Those are things you said, so I was discussing it.

Quote from: "TheJackel"This sums up my argument nicely, and my stated position to which you perhaps either didn't get, or chose to ignore.

If I've misunderstood your argument then please explain where I've said you meant something other than what you said.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteThat is in no way back peddling. For it to be back peddling, it would have to be a position I held, it wasn't a position I held. It was an example that counters what you stated.

So all you are doing then is just tossing around counter arguments for the sake of counter arguing without bothering to state a position.. We can or could do a lot of things, so what exactly is your position of what we should do then? What exactly is your position?

You stated something against something I said, I gave an example that what you said is not necessarily true. I explained this in a previous post. Once you stop assuming things, then we can clean this argument up. However until you agree to to stop assuming things about what I say and keep what I say the context in which I say it, I don't see how I can even trust that you'll even discuss my position.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So why would you bother to toss in the notion that "just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's illegal?".. So what exactly are you referring to, or trying to imply in regards to this and illegal immigration? It would be nice to get some clarification here, or maybe for you to actually state your position.

I clearly stated why I tossed that point into the discussion.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteNo, it's just I got bored of trying to point out to you yet another example of you arguing against something I didn't say.

From what I can tell, most of what you say is suggestive and never clearly states your position.. So what are you trying to say? Clarify your position without using counter suggestive counter arguments.

What I say should be clear enough, stop assuming it's suggestive and just talk about what I say. I'm not interested in discussing what you assume about what I say, and I'm not going to defend against your assumptions.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteIf the immigration standards said no Brazilians are allowed into the country any more, would you still support it?

This is a perfect example of a suggestive argument.. And completely irrelevant to what's being discussed. So what was your position or point here? What does this have to do with the impacts of immigration, or illegal immigration here in the United States when it clearly doesn't have anything to do with any of the immigration laws?

This is a perfect example of you assuming something other than what I clearly stated: "No, I was just giving an example that if the policies were unjust, that although it wouldn't mean that we just get rid of it all together, we would change the polices."

Quote from: "TheJackel"Again please note why this is irrelevant...

Read the last part where I said, "The point of that is to have you only discuss why you support a law and not just say "they broke the law, they deserve to be punished." Unless you hold the position that each and every breach of each and every law demands punishment no matter how ridiculous the law is."

Quote from: "TheJackel"So I am going to ask you a simple question.. Are the Federal laws that protect our Identities, defend against fraud, or govern immigration unjust?  Yes, No?

I think that the parts I already stated as being in need of correction are the parts that I think are unjust.

Quote from: "TheJackel"What we need to do is get on the same page, and the problem is that we seemingly have two different pictures in our heads on this subject that are not meshing well.

It would be easier to get onto the same page if I wasn't attempting to correct your assumptions for almost the entire discussion and you only discuss what I say when you're addressing what I say. That's all I'm asking: no more assumptions. Well not no assumptions entirely, just no assumptions about what I mean, what knowledge I have, what I've considered, what I really mean behind what I say, that I'm ignoring evidence... etc.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "McQ"Although I have no desire to post to this topic any more, I find that even with some of the low blows that have been dealt (like, "apparently you can't read or comprehend" - and which I'm sure will not continue, right?), that this is a fascinating topic to read. I'm actually enjoying it. As long as the parties involved keep to the arguments at hand and away from ad homs, this will be a topic of considerable learning potential. This is a complex issue, with no easy explanations or answers, but one worth discussing.

Thanks to you all who have put much effort and thought into it.

I have for most this discussion, been explaining all the various times that TheJackel had been asking me to defend positions I don't hold. it would be nice to get some kind of support for having an honest argument, not to just come in after pages of me asking TheJackel to stop doing it. Moderators had clearly been against the same kind of argument tactics that TheJackel is using when it concerned religious topics. I'm not bringing this up to defend my statement that you quoted, I'm bringing it up because I see a problem with not applying the same standards to all arguments. How can one say that a religious zealot can't do something when others are allowed to? In other threads TheJackel uses similar condescending language, however it's backed up with evidence, I don't have a problem with that. It's just when there's no evidence, there's no reason to assume that someone is ignoring it. I had refrained from using the same type of language that I kept asking TheJackel to stop using, however after several pages of TheJackel being allowed to use that type of language, I hardly think that now is the best time to come in and ask it all to stop just because I finally started to mimic it.

In short, I find there is a discrepancy here. We should hold all members to the same standards, not allow those who you stated that you agree with to go around doing that which has resulted in others being banned. If you like the argument, wouldn't it be a better argument if I wasn't constantly being asked to defend against things I didn't even say?

Now to defend my statement: it wasn't an ad hominem, I demonstrated several times where TheJackel had stated that I held a position I never even hinted that I held. TheJackel stated that he/she could read just fine but also wasn't intentionally creating straw mans. There are pages of evidence to support my position that there is a comprehension problem. So by all logical means, it wasn't an ad hominem.

 I hardly think it's any different than what TheJackel had been stating about me and others.

Now who is using straw men? Davin, you assumed because I used ONE example of an inappropriate comment you made, and that I earlier agreed with some of The Jackel's points, that I'm on the Jackel's side in this. You are mistaken. I keep my responsibilities as moderator separate from my personal opinions in this forum, and a thorough look at my entire history over the years I've moderated here would demonstrate that. My comment was to all parties involved.

For you to make the accusation in the open forum is a mistake. Next time, send me a PM, and you will get a PM in response, rather than this.

I used the one obvious example that I saw of a person in this discussion focusing on dissing the other person rather than sticking to the arguments. I don't read every line of every thread in this entire forum. Yours was an ad hom whether you agree or not. If it makes you feel any better, my post was aimed at everyone participating in the thread, which is obvious (I implied that your one ad hom was just one of the "low blows that have been dealt"), asking ALL parties involved to keep it on the up and up.

You need to move on with this. You were not, until this moment, which you have brought on yourself, being singled out. I chose not to use every example of poor behavior. I also asked everyone to play nice in this thread.

Again, I'm asking everyone in this discussion to keep it civil, and even to make sure they are listening to one another, rather than trying to win an argument, which seems to be where most of the issues have arisen from.

Quote from: "TheJackel"What? I've seen just as many lazy immigrants.. Though most I would say work really well, and very hard.. I don't know very many people that would even suggest otherwise and it really a moot point.. And if they are legal and a harder worker they deserve the job over some lazy worker. Also, there is nothing wrong with asking for time off, you can't expect people to be work slaves and not enjoy their life, family, and friends.. Many companies have paid vacation, and Legal Seafood's makes me take it.

Obviously the charge is a popular one if immigrants feel the need to address it in this manner.

Also, I've no problem with time off for my employees, obviously.  But there is a difference between scheduled vacation and asking for a Friday night off every couple of weeks, and that's not to mention the kids that will call in sick if their request cannot be granted.

I agree that this is off the main point.    

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

Quote from: "Thump"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.

[quote="Jack"I never stated it would completely repair our biodiversity, please read my above post in regards to Davin's.. Controlling immigration is a control point to which we should have absolute control over, and this is of course includes many other control points that effect our biodiversity.. America simply should never reach the point where they have to be like England to fight for every inch in order to save their habitats and biodiversity. It's simply food for thought that we ought not become like England and work on solutions that prevent that.. So open door policy definitely is not a smart choice, but a bad choice in this regard.[/quote]

Arguing that a modern industrialized society should have more than 60% of its acreage protected is not only unrealistic, but irrelevant.  Protected acreage is not being reduced because of immigrant pressure, but rather corporate interests.

Also, by demanding that England "completely repair their biodiversity" (your words, not mine), you are now adding an extra condition to your acceptance of Davin's argument, and therefore, yes, you are certainly moving the goalposts.

All opinions aside, let's make a prediction: Who will when the lawsuit? The Federal Government or the State of Arizona? Should be interesting to see...

Quote from: "Sophus"All opinions aside, let's make a prediction: Who will when the lawsuit? The Federal Government or the State of Arizona? Should be interesting to see...

Federal governemnt will, I bet.  14th Amendment applies federal law to states, and this court will apply that reasoning to policies as well as laws, I predict.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Sophus"All opinions aside, let's make a prediction: Who will when the lawsuit? The Federal Government or the State of Arizona? Should be interesting to see...

Federal governemnt will, I bet.  14th Amendment applies federal law to states, and this court will apply that reasoning to policies as well as laws, I predict.

I forgot about this thread :pop:

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Sophus"All opinions aside, let's make a prediction: Who will when the lawsuit? The Federal Government or the State of Arizona? Should be interesting to see...

Federal governemnt will, I bet.  14th Amendment applies federal law to states, and this court will apply that reasoning to policies as well as laws, I predict.

It looks as though the experts agree with you (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-legal-20100709,0,5875359.story), although I have to say it seems unstable ground to me because the fourteenth amenment applies to US citizens. How long do you suspect this will take to find out a verdict? Our government seems to operate in slow-mo.

We're less than 10 days away from seeing this law enacted (July 29th). I got a chance to read the law itself. It's rather vague and confusing, and I don't think it's only because I'm not a lawyer. If a person is arrested police are required to ask, "papers please?" if there is any "reasonable suspicion". With this I am fine with, although I don't see why they don't drop "reasonable suspicion" and just do a check on everyone. Who knows? Maybe they're an illegal alien from elsewhere.

There also other counts on which an officer must do this. This is where things get sticky.

It reads "for any lawful contact made by a law enforcement officer or agency of 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" ARTICLE 8, Section B. Emphasis my own.

What then is lawful contact? It never defines it. Is being pulled over in traffic lawful contact? Is going to the police because you've been mugged lawful contact? It says any lawful contact, apparently this must be broad. And note this is kept separate from Article 8, Section C which goes on to define the first acceptable instance I mentioned in which an officer may perform this (if they've been arrested for breaking the law).
I know a teenage girl who was returning home from a party at night and she had her Hispanic friends (yes they are legal citizens) in the car with her. She was pulled over for questioning, asked what she was doing "hanging around them". Is that lawful contact?

The Constitution itself applies to all inside our borders, be they citizens or no.  That's why jihadis are held in Gitmo ()not to derail).

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The Constitution itself applies to all inside our borders, be they citizens or no.  That's why jihadis are held in Gitmo ()not to derail).

You're right and from what I can tell this law violates the Ninth Amendment. Police need no warrant.

Oops! I would like to take a chance and correct myself. I just found this version of the law which shows the changes made in green. (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm) "Lawfull contact" has been changed to "lawful stop". I think this affirms my suspicions. These stops are likely to often be less than lawful.

This is also a good resource which helps explain how Arizona's Law does not simply mirror Federal Law:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

Quote from: "Sophus"Oops! I would like to take a chance and correct myself. I just found this version of the law which shows the changes made in green. (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm) "Lawfull contact" has been changed to "lawful stop". I think this affirms my suspicions. These stops are likely to often be less than lawful.

This is also a good resource which helps explain how Arizona's Law does not simply mirror Federal Law:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

This is still being debated?.. I am curious though, how exactly do you prevent illegal aliens if you are afraid to even check an ID?.. There is a rather large do nothing crowd out there who are too afraid to hurt someones pride, or feelings if they get checked for illegal immigration. :)

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Sophus"Oops! I would like to take a chance and correct myself. I just found this version of the law which shows the changes made in green. (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm) "Lawfull contact" has been changed to "lawful stop". I think this affirms my suspicions. These stops are likely to often be less than lawful.

This is also a good resource which helps explain how Arizona's Law does not simply mirror Federal Law:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

This is still being debated?.. I am curious though, how exactly do you prevent illegal aliens if you are afraid to even check an ID?.. There is a rather large do nothing crowd out there who are too afraid to hurt someones pride, or feelings if they get checked for illegal immigration. :)

Personally I'm not a big fan of 'If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind us taking a look' approach to infringing on freedoms.  I don't have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean I have to prove it by voluntarily giving up my right to not be hassled.

Quote from: "TheJackel"This is still being debated?..

What I was disproving were the conservative claims that they can only check if you've been arrested. In fact it's not. They can check for "lawful stops, detention, or arrest". And I agree pinko. I want to go on with my life unhassled by racial profiling (not that I've ever had to because I'm white). Besides, this law does not comply with the Ninth Amendment.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Sophus"Oops! I would like to take a chance and correct myself. I just found this version of the law which shows the changes made in green. (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm) "Lawfull contact" has been changed to "lawful stop". I think this affirms my suspicions. These stops are likely to often be less than lawful.

This is also a good resource which helps explain how Arizona's Law does not simply mirror Federal Law:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

This is still being debated?.. I am curious though, how exactly do you prevent illegal aliens if you are afraid to even check an ID?.. There is a rather large do nothing crowd out there who are too afraid to hurt someones pride, or feelings if they get checked for illegal immigration. :)

Personally I'm not a big fan of 'If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind us taking a look' approach to infringing on freedoms.  I don't have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean I have to prove it by voluntarily giving up my right to not be hassled.

I don't think looking at someones Legal status during a traffic stop is really anything to cry about. Essentially why would you care if they look into your legal status? You do realize that they also check your ID for warrants during these times too correct? Or should that be infringement on you freedoms? Remember, the Federal government and illegals created this problem by coming here. This is like how software piracy created the hassle of DRM.  

However, there is a better solution to this problem by letting states enforce ID verification with businesses. All you really need to do is take the job market away by prosecuting companies for just having illegal workers knowingly. Force companies to do positive ID verification for every employee within 30 days of hire, or something to that effect.

Jackel it's not suppose to matter if you or I would or would not feel injusticed by this if it were us this law would be affecting. Many will and it is their Constitutional right under the Fourth ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...")and the Ninth Amendment, to not be stopped for looking different. That right is suppose to be inalienable. Regrettably, the AZ Law is already taking affect, for example:

Quote from: "url=http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/why-arizonas-show-me-your-papers-law-must-be-stopped]ACLU[/url]"]Shortly after the law was passed in May, the ACLU brought a legal challenge to it with several other civil rights organizations. One of the plaintiffs in our challenge is Jim Shee, a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent who has already been stopped twice by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his "papers." If the Arizona police are already exhibiting this behavior, it's pretty easy to see that this extreme law, which practically begs police to engage in racial profiling, will lead to unnecessary police harassment of citizens based solely on the fact that they may look or sound like they are foreign. How else would police form a suspicion that someone was not in the U.S. legally?

This will hurt Arizona because a number of hard-working non-Caucasian looking citizens will not tolerate this burden and will move elsewhere. As this man (http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/would-you-ask-man-his-papers) has stated he is already considering if the law is not stopped.

First, I would like to thank you, Sophus, for taking the time to read the law and relate what you've learned, and for the links.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote from: "TheJackel"I don't think looking at someones Legal status during a traffic stop is really anything to cry about. Essentially why would you care if they look into your legal status?

I think you give a bit more credit to law enforcement for impartiality than they deserve. I've been pulled over more than a couple of times for questioning by "Officer Sir" because of the way I look.  They always had a good excuse, and were more than willing to lie straight to my face.  Two examples, but as I said, I've had several nice chats with police officers, and rolled away from them, after being stopped for no actual reason other than they thought I looked suspicious:

QuoteYou really need to be riding in the bike lane.

I knew perfectly well that I had been in the bike lane for the last mile or so, and was in it when the officer pulled up to me.  I also knew that my only reasonable response was to say, "Thank you for the reminder."  As politely as possible.  We both knew that I'd been in the bike lane, and the only reason he'd pulled me over was to check me out; see if I seemed to have been drinking or imbibing of illegal substances.  To see if I was foolish enough to give him some guff for harassing me.  I got pulled over simply because of the way I look, but as a police officer, it's not hard to come up with a bogus reason, and see where the situation takes you.

Driving an older pickup with up to date registration, and all lights functioning except one of the two license plate lights. (The other had been removed to use the wiring as a hookup for trailer running lights.)  Pulled over for the missing light, even though the single light meant that the truck was legally compliant. (Lots of older vehicles only have one license plate light.) We had a little talk, and I said, "Yes, I'll get that fixed as soon as I can."  Once again, the officer wanted to check me out, and came up with a "reason" that would cover his ass.

So in effect, this law will result in racial profiling, and we all know it.  In fact, on a right-wing forum to which I belong, it's said right out that there's nothing wrong with racial profiling, "because it works."

Is this (and my experiences with The Man) an infringement of freedom? Well, it's kind of a gray area I suppose, but stuff like this constitutes the first steps toward a police state. You may not see it that way, Jackel, but try being stopped arbitrarily (more than a few times) because of the way you look, and see how you feel about it. Law enforcement has enough serious crime to be dealing with.  We don't need them to be out stopping Latinos and checking papers.  And as I said, I think we all know that's exactly what will happen. It seems to me that it's either naive or disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Quote from: "TheJackel"However, there is a better solution to this problem by letting states enforce ID verification with businesses. All you really need to do is take the job market away by prosecuting companies for just having illegal workers knowingly. Force companies to do positive ID verification for every employee within 30 days of hire, or something to that effect.

I agree with you on this, without question.  Tell it to the US Chamber of Commerce, or your state or national representatives.  The current laws are fairly lenient on business owners.  Even when convicted, the most common sentence is something like a couple of years probation and a fine, as can be seen in this story (http://www.speroforum.com/a/31170/Is-a-life-sentence-disproportionate-justice-for-a-rabbi):

Quote...a Houston rag exporter called Action Rags USA was raided, resulting in the arrest of 150 immigrants. Owner Mubarik Kahlon was sentenced to two years’ probation and a $6,000 fine. The list of comparably light sentence cases goes on virtually without variation.

Quote from: "Sophus"Jackel it's not suppose to matter if you or I would or would not feel injusticed by this if it were us this law would be affecting. Many will and it is their Constitutional right under the Fourth ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...")and the Ninth Amendment, to not be stopped for looking different. That right is suppose to be inalienable. Regrettably, the AZ Law is already taking affect, for example:

Quote from: "url=http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/why-arizonas-show-me-your-papers-law-must-be-stopped]ACLU[/url]"]Shortly after the law was passed in May, the ACLU brought a legal challenge to it with several other civil rights organizations. One of the plaintiffs in our challenge is Jim Shee, a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent who has already been stopped twice by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his "papers." If the Arizona police are already exhibiting this behavior, it's pretty easy to see that this extreme law, which practically begs police to engage in racial profiling, will lead to unnecessary police harassment of citizens based solely on the fact that they may look or sound like they are foreign. How else would police form a suspicion that someone was not in the U.S. legally?

This will hurt Arizona because a number of hard-working non-Caucasian looking citizens will not tolerate this burden and will move elsewhere. As this man (http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/would-you-ask-man-his-papers) has stated he is already considering if the law is not stopped.

The law in 24 states requires all people to identify themselves to police officers upon request.  To my knowledge, the presentation of an ID card is not required.  I may well be behind the times on this, though.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The law in 24 states requires all people to identify themselves to police officers upon request.  To my knowledge, the presentation of an ID card is not required.  I may well be behind the times on this, though.

Obviously I can't blame you for not seeing it  :bananacolor:

This issue only interests me so much much because this law may be coming to my state.  

Yeah, I'm not trying to paste a position you don't hold on  you, just bringing up what I think is a fair point.  Sorry if I missed your priority.

Here in California, for a long time an adult could receive a ticket for not possessing govt-issued ID.

Don't know if that's still the case.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yeah, I'm not trying to paste a position you don't hold on  you, just bringing up what I think is a fair point.  Sorry if I missed your priority.

Here in California, for a long time an adult could receive a ticket for not possessing govt-issued ID.

Don't know if that's still the case.

From what I hear, while those laws exist their enforcement is rare. As with other states. I don't know if it's true though.

So now it goes to the courts.  U S District Judge Susan Bolton ruled against some of the more contentious portions of the Arizona law:

Quote from: "Judge Bolton"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. ... By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.

Reuters story on the ruling. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66R45C20100728)

This will likely go to the 9th Circuit, where I would hazard a guess that Bolton's ruling will be upheld.  Then it will be headed for the Supreme Court.

I haven't been on here in a while, otherwise I would have most likely been on the first page. I have not read all 12 pages so forgive me if i miss something.

 I am one of those who assist with the enforcement of this law. Unfortunately most people, with out legal/enforcement experience, don't understand how the law is enforced. The funniest thing about people making a big stink about this is that the law was written as such that the officer must prove that the person in question has been in the country for more than 30 days. So essentially it brakes down to, let me see you license, registration, proof of insurance and utility bill. No utility bill? Darn.

The system is in place to take car of those who either, have never had a license, don't posses ID/passport or can't provide registration or insurance. It's called arrest. Once they get to the jail their status is checked and from there ICE handles it. In AZ, it is illegal not to present a government issued ID when asked by police.(Failure to provide identification) So people are getting upset over nothing.

Honestly though, illegal is illegal. Not undocumented, not migrant worker or any of the other PC crap that comes from the media and certain government entities.

Quote from: "Recusant"So now it goes to the courts.  U S District Judge Susan Bolton ruled against some of the more contentious portions of the Arizona law:

Quote from: "Judge Bolton"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. ... By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.

Reuters story on the ruling. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66R45C20100728)

This will likely go to the 9th Circuit, where I would hazard a guess that Bolton's ruling will be upheld.  Then it will be headed for the Supreme Court.

It's a start. Apparently there's a lot of "hate" in Arizona that people are now protesting, not SB 1070. During one protest During one protest Salvador Reza was arrested for no real reason. (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/07/salvador_reza_released_prosecu.php)

Quote from: "Beast"Honestly though, illegal is illegal. Not undocumented, not migrant worker or any of the other PC crap that comes from the media and certain government entities.

It allows officers to stop people of "reasonable suspicion" as well. Or at least it did. If you look back, I think one page, you'll see a link I posted to the story of an American citizen of hispanic heritage who was stopped twice by police officers weeks before the full law was suppose to go into effect.

We've also been discussing whether or not the already existing federal immigration laws themselves or their consequences are rational.

Quote from: "Sophus"It allows officers to stop people of "reasonable suspicion" as well. Or at least it did. If you look back, I think one page, you'll see a link I posted to the story of an American citizen of hispanic heritage who was stopped twice by police officers weeks before the full law was suppose to go into effect.

We've also been discussing whether or not the already existing federal immigration laws themselves or their consequences are rational.

How do you mean the law allowed to stop for reasonable suspicion? It doesn't even become a thought legally until a stop or contact is made, such as broken tail light, speeding, complaints of loitering..etc.

The federal doesn't do anything because it isn't enforced. Example being, California's immigration law, it has been on the books since the 90's but is not enforced so it doesn't do anything.

Salvador Reza was arrested on the 30th for violating court orders. Don't believe everything you read. I happen to be present to a good portion for arguments of this law. The only hate in AZ is towards the failure of laws to be upheld.

Quote from: "Beast"How do you mean the law allowed to stop for reasonable suspicion? It doesn't even become a thought legally until a stop or contact is made, such as broken tail light, speeding, complaints of loitering..etc.

The federal doesn't do anything because it isn't enforced. Example being, California's immigration law, it has been on the books since the 90's but is not enforced so it doesn't do anything.

Salvador Reza was arrested on the 30th for violating court orders. Don't believe everything you read. I happen to be present to a good portion for arguments of this law. The only hate in AZ is towards the failure of laws to be upheld.

I know how the law is suppose to work in theory, but unfortunately it doesn't work out that way. I would encourage you to look at the previous page of this discussion. Especially note Recusant's encounter's with "lawful stops".

Also according to AZ Central, "A spokesman for the Sheriff's Office said deputies arrested Reza for violating the conditions of his release from jail Thursday. Sheriff's officials did not specify what those terms were." Are you aware of what those terms were?

Quote from: "Sophus"I know how the law is suppose to work in theory, but unfortunately it doesn't work out that way. I would encourage you to look at the previous page of this discussion. Especially note Recusant's encounter's with "lawful stops".

Also according to AZ Central, "A spokesman for the Sheriff's Office said deputies arrested Reza for violating the conditions of his release from jail Thursday. Sheriff's officials did not specify what those terms were." Are you aware of what those terms were?

If you are not the one enforcing such laws you would not know either way. Just to humor you, how do you think it actually works?

Conditions of his release was the court order I was referring to. I am not at liberty to discuss certain things due to my employer's policies.

Quote from: "Beast"If you are not the one enforcing such laws you would not know either way. Just to humor you, how do you think it actually works?

Conditions of his release was the court order I was referring to. I am not at liberty to discuss certain things due to my employer's policies.

This is what I was hoping you would read. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5027&start=165#p75204)

I did see that and to be totally honest it seems all like bull. The first instance he gave, the bike lane, that is completely right. If you are traveling in the bike lane then a cop would be neglecting his duties by not checking you out.

As to racial profiling, our command makes it very well known racial profiling will not be tolerated. If it is found an officer is using this method there are severe punishments. There have already been dozens of complaints by citizens like Recusant, who believe the cops are out to get everyone but whitey, and every single one of them has come to be found with no merit by third party investigations.

And once again if you didn't understand it the first time, if someone does something illegal that equals a crime. Like I said if have not worked law enforcement you won't know what the application of any law is actually like.

In my experience not all police officers are perfect angels. Especially when it comes to stereotyping. SB 1070 is begging to be abused, as legal citizen's will and have already been racial profiled. And Arpaio's sweeps are really starting to smell fishy (http://washingtonindependent.com/93605/doj-threatens-to-sue-arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio). Not to mention there are other aspects of the law which do more than simply mirror federal immigration law.

Quote from: "Sophus"In my experience not all police officers are perfect angels. Especially when it comes to stereotyping. SB 1070 is begging to be abused, as legal citizen's will and have already been racial profiled. Not to mention there are other aspects of the law which do more than simply mirror federal immigration law.

That's the thing with opponents to this. No evidence for their claims and constantly over looking the facts. An officer couldn't even charge someone under this law with out being able to prove they have been present in the country for at least 30 days. So what would even be the point of racial profiling if they can't verify their length of stay in the country. Besides the fact that we have had someone from nearly every corner of the globe deported due to immigration status. We have had English deported, they were white), so I guess it wasn't a white cop who stopped them.

Honestly look at all the other laws that police have to deal with. Why is it you would trust them to deal with everything else except for this. And again if you don't know how to apply it you really can't have an educated view.

Maybe a scenario would help? This is from a more recent experience:
6pm, we are driving in to the sun, observer a vehicle traveling in the same direction(can't see the driver, rarely can) Giant sticker in the front window obstructing the drivers view(Equipment violation) pull over.
Typical Q's, Lic, Reg, Proof of Ins.
Driver does not have a Lic. Reg is to a different person, no Proof of Ins. or any form of ID(This would arouse suspicion)
Driver does not speak English(Reasonable suspicion exists that the driver is in this country illegally)
Q's continue.
Driver provides personal information, no record comes back(not registered immigrant/provided false info)
Q's again
Driver confirms the information is correct but is here illegally.(Right there would be arrest for numerous violations from earlier)
If the driver admits to being in the country for 30+ days or happens to have a utility bill or the like(1070), if not then he is arrested for the violations at hand and once to jail processing confirms he is illegal and then County Attorney's Office follows up with the charges.

Quote from: "Beast"An officer couldn't even charge someone under this law with out being able to prove they have been present in the country for at least 30 days.

That's irrelevant to whether or not a legal citizens and/or resident aliens will be stopped and asked for identification. (http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html) Things like this go on without this law in place, even in states like mine. Are you insisting instances like this never happen at all? I'm sure you do your job perfectly well, along with a good number of other officers, however, the same cannot be said of all law enforcers.

My "uneducated view" seems to agree with the judge's ruling (http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/courtinfo.nsf/983700DFEE44B56B0725776E005D6CCB/$file/10-1413-87.pdf?openelement):

Quote"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. ... By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

QuoteHonestly look at all the other laws that police have to deal with. Why is it you would trust them to deal with everything else except for this.

I really don't trust law enforcement with a number of thing but that's another issue.    But this issue is not just a matter of what is lawful but also what is constitutional.

ALSO: I wasn't able to edit my previous post in time when I added this link (http://washingtonindependent.com/93605/doj-threatens-to-sue-arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio). It sounds very very suspicious to me.

Quote from: "Beast"I did see that and to be totally honest it seems all like bull. The first instance he gave, the bike lane, that is completely right. If you are traveling in the bike lane then a cop would be neglecting his duties by not checking you out.

Hello, Beast.  I don't think that we've ever conversed here before.  Let me just say, that if you're in law enforcement, I respect the fact that you have a tough job, and I commend you for trying to do it well.  Now to your post--

I was describing two recent examples of a long history of interacting with police officers.  Probably at least 30 instances, and that's being conservative.  I've only been arrested once, back in 1981 I think it was, for smoking weed on the street.  I'm actually Caucasian.  But I look like a freak, and to be honest, I guess I actually am one.  However, I'm not stupid, and I've got some street smarts.  I guess you mis-read my bike lane story.  I was riding a bike in the bike lane, and had both front and rear lights.  I was not intoxicated, and was riding normally.  There was absolutely no reason for the officer to pull me over, other than to check me out.  He didn't ask me where I had come from, only where I was going. (As he might have, for instance, if he'd gotten a report of somebody on a bike in the area who had done something.)  I can only assume that, like many cops I've had the dubious honor of speaking with before in similar circumstances, he simply didn't like my looks. This is a type of profiling that I can actually understand; freaky looking people are also many times law-breakers.  My point being, an officer really doesn't need an objective reason to make a stop.  It's very easy to lie (don't tell me police officers don't lie; we both know that's not the case) and concoct an excuse to stop somebody.  So an officer under the Arizona law could (and you know at least some of them will, if the law is upheld) engage in racial profiling, and get away with it, simply because of the way the law is written. The Arizona law (unwritten, between the lines, but still there for any who have half a brain to see it) encourages racial profiling.  Notwithstanding official statements, both to the public, and to law enforcement, that racial profiling will not be tolerated.  

This (attempting to chase down illegal immigrants) is simply going at the problem from the wrong end.  There should be much stricter penalties for employing illegal immigrants.  Take away the main incentive to migrate to the US, and, though the issue won't be completely resolved, it will be cut down to much more manageable levels.

Quote from: "Sophus"That's irrelevant to whether or not a legal citizens and/or resident aliens will be stopped and asked for identification. (http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html) Things like this go on without this law in place, even in states like mine. Are you insisting instances like this never happen at all? I'm sure you do your job perfectly well, along with a good number of other officers, however, the same cannot be said of all law enforcers.

My "uneducated view" seems to agree with the judge's ruling (http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/courtinfo.nsf/983700DFEE44B56B0725776E005D6CCB/$file/10-1413-87.pdf?openelement):

Quote"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. ... By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

ALSO: I wasn't able to edit my previous post in time when I added this link (http://washingtonindependent.com/93605/doj-threatens-to-sue-arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio). It sounds very very suspicious to me.

I don't have enough information from that AZcentral site to brake it down and understand it. I hear these sorts of things everyday. However, until the other side of any story if found it really doesn't matter much. Not to say that they are lying. I don't work for ICE so I don't know what their procedures are, by the way that is a federal agency, not from AZ. everyone pulled over is asked for their ID, but as far as the BC goes we have never asked for one.

As for the Arpaio thing, that's nothing new. He doesn't run his office like Phoenix, picking and choosing what they will enforce. LE should not play politics, their sole responsibility is to enforce the laws, all of them. A minority of people don't like that Arpaio does the job no one else wants to do.

Oddly enough it is the minority on both sides of the links you bring up that screw everything for the better side. The news will only publish something to increase ratings. So even the 1% of cops, who are the d-bags, get way more attention then the rest, but it gets a story. It's something like 70% approve of Arpaio and 1070.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Beast"I did see that and to be totally honest it seems all like bull. The first instance he gave, the bike lane, that is completely right. If you are traveling in the bike lane then a cop would be neglecting his duties by not checking you out.

Hello, Beast.  I don't think that we've ever conversed here before.  Let me just say, that if you're in law enforcement, I respect the fact that you have a tough job, and I commend you for trying to do it well.  Now to your post--

I was describing two recent examples of a long history of interacting with police officers.  Probably at least 30 instances, and that's being conservative.  I've only been arrested once, back in 1981 I think it was, for smoking weed on the street.  I'm actually Caucasian.  But I look like a freak, and to be honest, I guess I actually am one.  However, I'm not stupid, and I've got some street smarts.  I guess you mis-read my bike lane story.  I was riding a bike in the bike lane, and had both front and rear lights.  I was not intoxicated, and was riding normally.  There was absolutely no reason for the officer to pull me over, other than to check me out.  He didn't ask me where I had come from, only where I was going. (As he might have, for instance, if he'd gotten a report of somebody on a bike in the area who had done something.)  I can only assume that, like many cops I've had the dubious honor of speaking with before in similar circumstances, he simply didn't like my looks. This is a type of profiling that I can actually understand; freaky looking people are also many times law-breakers.  My point being, an officer really doesn't need an objective reason to make a stop.  It's very easy to lie (don't tell me police officers don't lie; we both know that's not the case) and concoct an excuse to stop somebody.  So an officer under the Arizona law could (and you know at least some of them will, if the law is upheld) engage in racial profiling, and get away with it, simply because of the way the law is written. The Arizona law (unwritten, between the lines, but still there for any who have half a brain to see it) encourages racial profiling.  Notwithstanding official statements, both to the public, and to law enforcement, that racial profiling will not be tolerated.  

This (attempting to chase down illegal immigrants) is simply going at the problem from the wrong end.  There should be much stricter penalties for employing illegal immigrants.  Take away the main incentive to migrate to the US, and, though the issue won't be completely resolved, it will be cut down to much more manageable levels.

We have not and thank you.

I did misread that then, I understood it as if you were driving. Don't get me wrong, by no means am I saying all cops are perfect, they are human. I can offer the best examples as how me department handles everything and I know very well there are several F'ed up agencies out there.

As for employers, most people seemed to have missed this too. AZ has employer sanctions laws(last big woopty doo of immigration laws and that went through the court system as well, up held), with that very intention in mind, unfortunately there are agencies like Phoenix, as I stated above, who pick and choose what laws to enforce. That is one reason I do like portions of 1070 because there are provisions to punish the agencies who aren't enforcing it. I think it should be that way for all laws, but I don't get to write them. If the agencies were forced to enforce the existing employer sanctions laws, 1070 would not have been needed.

There was a similar outcry by immigrant rights and civil bs groups when the employer sanctions was passed, just not as well televised.

Sophus and Recusant, I am sure I missed something, wore out from today's shift. So if I did just point it out and please forgive the spelling errors.  

Quote from: "Beast"I hear these sorts of things everyday. However, until the other side of any story if found it really doesn't matter much. Not to say that they are lying. I don't work for ICE so I don't know what their procedures are, by the way that is a federal agency, not from AZ. everyone pulled over is asked for their ID, but as far as the BC goes we have never asked for one.

As is the case with anything I am sure there are some individuals who might lie about such a thing to play victim so as to cover up actually doing something wrong. However, like yourself, I hear similar things quite often. Doubtfully is it one big conspiracy.

QuoteAs for the Arpaio thing, that's nothing new. He doesn't run his office like Phoenix, picking and choosing what they will enforce. LE should not play politics, their sole responsibility is to enforce the laws, all of them. A minority of people don't like that Arpaio does the job no one else wants to do.

Oddly enough it is the minority on both sides of the links you bring up that screw everything for the better side. The news will only publish something to increase ratings. So even the 1% of cops, who are the d-bags, get way more attention then the rest, but it gets a story. It's something like 70% approve of Arpaio and 1070.

I don't think much of approval ratings. The minority almost always must wait for a court ruling (as seems to be the case with SB 1070) to get equality because when you put such matters to a vote the majority does what they please, regardless if it is truly constitutional. Arpaio is refusing to cooperate with a civil rights investigation again (was there not an earlier case when documents were all conveniently shredded and emails deleted?)

As for the "show me your papers" part, it's not the requirement of the papers themselves which are the problem (that has already been a federal law). My concern is the AZ law makes it a misdemeanor crime for an alien to not have them.

QuoteThat is one reason I do like portions of 1070 because there are provisions to punish the agencies who aren't enforcing it. I think it should be that way for all laws, but I don't get to write them. If the agencies were forced to enforce the existing employer sanctions laws, 1070 would not have been needed.

This is actually one of the biggest problems I have with it. It's already a sue happy world and whether or not someone is doing everything within their power to enforce the law is all too subjective. This part is also another example of how it the law does more than simply mirror pre-existing federal law. A State does not have the power to do this.

So the law is strictly to be applied only in situations when a law is being broken such as when a person gets pulled over for speeding and never when a person is obeying all of the laws?  So it's perfectly safe for American citizens of Mexican ancestry to drive around, hang out in the park, or walk their dogs in Arizona without any fear they'll be asked for proof of citizenship?  There's no chance at all that Mexican American teens too young to have drivers licenses will get detained or harassed by LEOs?

And of course you can't ask passengers in a car during a traffic stop if they can prove their citizen or legal alien status, right?  

Can't police in every other state check a person's ID when that person is caught committing a crime or a traffic violation?

Quote from: "Sophus"I don't think much of approval ratings. The minority almost always must wait for a court ruling (as seems to be the case with SB 1070) to get equality because when you put such matters to a vote the majority does what they please, regardless if it is truly constitutional. Arpaio is refusing to cooperate with a civil rights investigation again (was there not an earlier case when documents were all conveniently shredded and emails deleted?)

As for the "show me your papers" part, it's not the requirement of the papers themselves which are the problem (that has already been a federal law). My concern is the AZ law makes it a misdemeanor crime for an alien to not have them.


This is actually one of the biggest problems I have with it. It's already a sue happy world and whether or not someone is doing everything within their power to enforce the law is all too subjective. This part is also another example of how it the law does more than simply mirror pre-existing federal law. A State does not have the power to do this.

Mostly all the MCSO stuff is coming from the Board of Supervisors(total waste of space). The most recent one you are thinking of was the BoS suing for 50,000 emails and documentation to be gathered in a week. I would have told them to 'F' off also. And not that Napolitano is in with the feds, there is more BS coming from them. Nothing has ever been sustained against the Office. Any time you here them settling in out of court and what not, that is because the Insurance provider says it would be cheaper to settle instead of go through the lengthy court process. Most people don't know that about govt. settlements.

Ever hear of States's rights? The way everything was originally founded was a loose association between states with minor federal over sight. That's why laws vary so much from state to state. Now some people think the federal govt. should have it all, I'd say "hell no" to that, they can't anything straight or enforce many of their laws.

It is illegal no matter your citizenship/alien status to not have ID with you and be able to provide it when ask. Federal law does require all aliens to carry their passport with them at all times and provide it when asked.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"So the law is strictly to be applied only in situations when a law is being broken such as when a person gets pulled over for speeding and never when a person is obeying all of the laws?  So it's perfectly safe for American citizens of Mexican ancestry to drive around, hang out in the park, or walk their dogs in Arizona without any fear they'll be asked for proof of citizenship?  There's no chance at all that Mexican American teens too young to have drivers licenses will get detained or harassed by LEOs?

And of course you can't ask passengers in a car during a traffic stop if they can prove their citizen or legal alien status, right?  

Can't police in every other state check a person's ID when that person is caught committing a crime or a traffic violation?

Correct.

Minors with out lic. will get detained no matter what background they are, do it all the time. Same for adults, but usually that ends in arrest.

Passengers can't not be required to provide proof of citizenship, only ID and passport if necessary. As far as I know every state requires that ID be carried by everyone above a certain age, varies between states.

I'm sure white people get asked for their passport all the time.  Riiiight.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I'm sure white people get asked for their passport all the time.  Riiiight.

When they don't provide a state issued DL, yes. Like I said about the Brit, he came here illegally so he obviously didn't have the right paper work in the first place. Stop a ways back, driver was from South Africa(white guy with a funny brit accent) only had a country ID, so he had to provide a passport.

Quote from: "Beast"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I'm sure white people get asked for their passport all the time.  Riiiight.

When they don't provide a state issued DL, yes. Like I said about the Brit, he came here illegally so he obviously didn't have the right paper work in the first place. Stop a ways back, driver was from South Africa(white guy with a funny brit accent) only had a country ID, so he had to provide a passport.

I never give my ID when I've done nothing wrong. Police officers do not have the right to just ask me for my ID whenever they feel like it, so if they ask, I say no. If they pester me I ask them for a the probable cause and/or reasonable purpose for the search while I write down their badge numbers.

They don't need probable cause or a reason to search if I volunteer to be searched or to offer up my ID, but they do if I refuse. And I refuse to allow myself to be harassed by any one, especially six foot assholes with a badge and a gun. If it takes a police officer a suspension or to lose his/her job to learn that the badge doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want to people, then I'll do it. I personally know some really good police officers and some alright ones, but just like any other population sample, there's going to be some assholes, some good ones and everything in between, I just happen to get stopped by a lot of the assholes.

Where I live, all people aged 18+ must carry a Government issued photo ID, however police officers are not allowed to enforce it primarily, only secondarily. Meaning that if ID is required (like when an officer is issuing a traffic ticket), then they can enforce that law, but they can't just go around making sure everyone has their ID on them due to the fourth and fourteenth amendments.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Beast"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I'm sure white people get asked for their passport all the time.  Riiiight.

When they don't provide a state issued DL, yes. Like I said about the Brit, he came here illegally so he obviously didn't have the right paper work in the first place. Stop a ways back, driver was from South Africa(white guy with a funny brit accent) only had a country ID, so he had to provide a passport.

I never give my ID when I've done nothing wrong. Police officers do not have the right to just ask me for my ID whenever they feel like it, so if they ask, I say no. If they pester me I ask them for a the probable cause and/or reasonable purpose for the search while I write down their badge numbers.

They don't need probable cause or a reason to search if I volunteer to be searched or to offer up my ID, but they do if I refuse. And I refuse to allow myself to be harassed by any one, especially six foot assholes with a badge and a gun. If it takes a police officer a suspension or to lose his/her job to learn that the badge doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want to people, then I'll do it. I personally know some really good police officers and some alright ones, but just like any other population sample, there's going to be some assholes, some good ones and everything in between, I just happen to get stopped by a lot of the assholes.

Where I live, all people aged 18+ must carry a Government issued photo ID, however police officers are not allowed to enforce it primarily, only secondarily. Meaning that if ID is required (like when an officer is issuing a traffic ticket), then they can enforce that law, but they can't just go around making sure everyone has their ID on them due to the fourth and fourteenth amendments.

Davin, I think you missed the entire premise under which you can be asked for your ID.

Quote from: "Beast"Davin, I think you missed the entire premise under which you can be asked for your ID.

I get asked for ID by police officers quite often when I've done nothing wrong, which premise am I missing?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Beast"Davin, I think you missed the entire premise under which you can be asked for your ID.

I get asked for ID by police officers quite often when I've done nothing wrong, which premise am I missing?

What were you involved with when you were asked? Just walking down the sidewalk and a cruiser pulls up to block you off and demand you ID?

Quote from: "Beast"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Beast"Davin, I think you missed the entire premise under which you can be asked for your ID.

I get asked for ID by police officers quite often when I've done nothing wrong, which premise am I missing?

What were you involved with when you were asked? Just walking down the sidewalk and a cruiser pulls up to block you off and demand you ID?

Yes. That is the exact situation almost all of the time... well half the time I'm skateboarding.

On a semi-related note: today a friend of mine says he got stopped for, I kid not, "looking too pissed off".  

Quote from: "Sophus"On a semi-related note: today a friend of mine says he got stopped for, I kid not, "looking too pissed off".  lol, ya that's retarded.

I used to wear long hair as a kid.  That always got me stopped, and hey always wanted to pat me down, too; back then all long-hairs were druggies, in their pointy little minds.

When I cut my hair, the stops mysteriously, well, stopped.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I used to wear long hair as a kid.  That always got me stopped, and hey always wanted to pat me down, too; back then all long-hairs were druggies, in their pointy little minds.

When I cut my hair, the stops mysteriously, well, stopped.

That's the answer! We just need a way to make everyone look like everyone else!

Seriously, that is the problem with profiling. Probable cause should not be based on a person's appearance but, instead, on what that person does.

Here's the latest (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081703637.html?wprss=rss_print/asection) on Sheriff Joe Arpaio:

Quote from: "Washington Post"A federal investigation of a controversial Arizona sheriff known for tough immigration enforcement has intensified in recent days, escalating the conflict between the Obama administration and officials in the border state.

Justice Department officials in Washington have issued a rare threat to sue Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio if he does not cooperate with their investigation of whether he discriminates against Hispanics. The civil rights inquiry is one of two that target the man who calls himself "America's toughest sheriff." A federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining whether Arpaio has used his power to investigate and intimidate political opponents and whether his office misappropriated government money, sources said.

________________________________________________________________________

And I think Conor Oberst makes a good point that I hadn't thought of in this video from the Concert for Equality (http://vimeo.com/14214748). With employers being targeted for hiring any illegal immigrants they may avoid hiring any one who is of "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal alien. Because of course there are misconceptions of the law out there and with the threat of a lawsuit being a possibility for anyone who's not doing their part to crack down on illegal immigration paranoia will be on the rise. To be clear, in theory, this law should not cause this to happen. Unfortunately, reality is different. Similarly I can only imagine how many people would be pulled over for giving a ride to a latino, since they're not allowed to give rides to anyone who could be an illegal immigrant. I wonder how this would play out for bus drivers. Paranoia=bad.

A big kudos to those who were able to prevent the copy-cat law from making itself a reality in Fremont Nebraska.

Quote from: "Sophus"With employers being targeted for hiring any illegal immigrants they may avoid hiring any one who is of "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal alien. Because of course there are misconceptions of the law out there and with the threat of a lawsuit being a possibility for anyone who's not doing their part to crack down on illegal immigration paranoia will be on the rise. To be clear, in theory, this law should not cause this to happen. Unfortunately, reality is different.

It would appear to be a possibility.  Speaking as a retail manager who has unwittingly hired illegals, I can tell you it never entered my mind to avoid Hispanics throughout the hiring process; being in a Southern-border state, that is literally not an option, as the vast majority of applicants for median jobs (say, $8 - 15 / hr) are Hispanic, and such discrimination would immediately be obvious.  

A cost-benefit analysis makes it plain that it's better to take the chance of hiring an illegal, and pay a little more to do post-hiring follow-up to ensure legal compliance, than to suffer a class-action lawsuit.

For this reason, it seems like the possibility,  while certainly extant, seems remote.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Sophus"With employers being targeted for hiring any illegal immigrants they may avoid hiring any one who is of "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal alien. Because of course there are misconceptions of the law out there and with the threat of a lawsuit being a possibility for anyone who's not doing their part to crack down on illegal immigration paranoia will be on the rise. To be clear, in theory, this law should not cause this to happen. Unfortunately, reality is different.

It would appear to be a possibility.  Speaking as a retail manager who has unwittingly hired illegals, I can tell you it never entered my mind to avoid Hispanics throughout the hiring process; being in a Southern-border state, that is literally not an option, as the vast majority of applicants for median jobs (say, $8 - 15 / hr) are Hispanic, and such discrimination would immediately be obvious.  

A cost-benefit analysis makes it plain that it's better to take the chance of hiring an illegal, and pay a little more to do post-hiring follow-up to ensure legal compliance, than to suffer a class-action lawsuit.

For this reason, it seems like the possibility,  while certainly extant, seems remote.

Ah, that's an astute point. There's the threat of a lawsuit on both sides. Hmm....

Bill McCollum, a Republican running for governor in Florida, wants to bring this (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/11/florida-ag-mccollum-unveils-immigration-modeled-arizonas/) to the state:

QuoteThe Florida proposal would, like Arizona's, require law enforcement officers to check the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant in the course of a "lawful stop."

It would require state businesses to use a national registry to ensure new employees are legal and would increase penalties for illegal immigrants who commit other crimes. The bill would also require non-citizen immigrants to carry immigration documentation or face a misdemeanor charge that could carry up to 20 days in jail.

Though McCollum's office said in a statement that the legislation was adjusted to "strengthen it" against a possible court challenge, the proposal would go beyond Arizona's by letting judges consider a defendant's illegal immigrant status during bond proceedings.

I haven't been able to find the actual proposal online but indeed this sounds worse than Arizona's. 20 days in jail? lol

I'm not the biggest Olbermann fan but wow. Jan Brewer's responses to the "what about your false headless bodies claim?" questions. Just... wow.
[youtube:2op3npnu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwwVcfc34WU[/youtube:2op3npnu]

Anyone who is willing to make up this kind of whopper in the first place to pass a law like SB 1070, really makes you, to put it mildly, suspicious. Illegal immigration this year is down by over 60% yet they act like it has never been worse. Deploy the scare tactics! Don't let them know this is all about money. Greedy private run prisons.

Quote from: "Sophus"I haven't been able to find the actual proposal online but indeed this sounds worse than Arizona's. 20 days in jail?

Arizona law already required immigrants to carry documentation long before.

The problem with the Arizona law, the thing that makes it Unconstituional as opposed to just stupid or bad, is that if the po-pos stop you and, if you don't have your papers, you're immediately arrested.  This, of course, will affect things like employment.  So, functionally, even citizens, if they want to avoid arrest, will have to carry proof of citizenship.  It's a pretty basic and traditional assumption, based on Constitutional arguments though, I think, not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, that US citizens do not have to carry proof of citizenship.

I tried to skim through most of the responses before I posted but I am sure after 15 pages I could have missed something so be gentle.

First, the law. Yes, it is horribly unconstitutional. It leads us down a terrible road of national ID cards and the like.

Supply and demand are the only influences in the US labor market and there is no job Americans won't do. Will you pay twice as much for strawberries? Yes, but guess what, if those jobs were available for twice as much as what you pay illegal labor, people may not have lost their homes resulting in the morgage collapse. So, perhaps you end up spending more for fruit, veggies and you actually have to get off your butt and wash your own windows but you have a more stable lower/middle class resulting in a better America.

Making all current illegals legal would provide a short term stabilization of prices but you couldn't expect all of their children to work those same jobs picking fruit for half as much. No, they will have an education and the cost of unskilled labor would finally adjust to what it should be.

Should illegal labor be allowed to stay and if not, how do you remove them? Those are the big questions. I personally don't care. The damage has been done. The immigration quotas in the US are enforced for a reason, to prevent immigration from affecting the market and to prevent it from affecting culture extremely. I believe as I have to push 1 for english, we can't hope to undo the damage. The labor bubble will pop and unskilled labor will eventually climb like a rocket. I believe if you are going to set a circumstances for deporting anyone, it should be on the basis for language and make the fines and prison time for hiring illegals to be so ghastly unattractive that no one will do it. How much would it really cost to put some undercover cops where illegals look for work and then as soon as they are hired, arrest the guy?

Looking to the future, you have to secure the border and I believe Mexico at the moment has to help. If they chose not to help, I see no other way to do it but a huge fence and landmines. After the first one explodes, the rest will be less eager but I would hope Mexico would at some point change their policy. We simply don't have the funds to maintain a National Guard border patrol which adequate coverage.  Lastly on this note, I believe once it becomes obvious that the border will be uncrossable, many illegals will chose to return as they frequently send money to families but have no desire to move to the United States.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about Americans rights but our constitution doesn't extend to the planet. It just extends to Americans.

Here's Conor's brand new song for the Sound Strike (http://www.thesoundstrike.net/soundstrikesongs.php). It's about kids who get separated from their parents when they're deported. All proceeds go The Florence Project.

QuoteThis Fund donates needed resources to families caring for children in Arizona whose parents are detained or have been deported, immigrant rights organizing and legal defense.

Arizona is a place where Maricopa County Sheriffs carry toys to calm the nerves of children whose parents are physically pried away from the arms of their children. Those immigrant parents are detained without bail or access to public defenders. The need for legal defense is great as is the need to provide assistance to the guardians, usually family or neighbor, that take in these emotionally distressed children while their parents are held by the Arizona immigrant hater prison system.

Does it really bother people that they have to push 1 for English sometimes when using automated systems?  It certainly seems true that when the economy gets bad, nativism spikes like a mofo.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Does it really bother people that they have to push 1 for English sometimes when using automated systems?

Yes.  It does.  If people can't be bothered to learn the language, why should I bother to extend them courtesies?

If English was the national language, your position would make more sense.  But yeah, I get it - screw anyone different from me!  Rrrahhhh, etc!  

It's Capitalism. If companies want to make a Spanish option that's their own business (no pun intended).

Quote from: "pinkocommie"If English was the national language, your position would make more sense.  

Were there a national language at all there would be some recourse.

QuoteBut yeah, I get it - screw anyone different from me!  Rrrahhhh, etc!  

But then you don't get it.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"If English was the national language, your position would make more sense.  

Were there a national language at all there would be some recourse.

QuoteBut yeah, I get it - screw anyone different from me!  Rrrahhhh, etc!   :D

Quote from: "Sophus"It's Capitalism. If companies want to make a Spanish option that's their own business (no pun intended).

Yeah, exactly.  Until it's made a law that people MUST speak English to exist in the US, people are going to speak other languages in the US.  Boo hoo.  Get over it.  If you enjoy the benefits of capitalism, you're going to have to deal with the consequences as well.

(I had to edit to add that I don't think mandating the speaking of English actually would make all people in the country speak English, but it certainly would make those gosh darned numerated language options obsolete.)

Quote from: "pinkocommie"(I had to edit to add that I don't think mandating the speaking of English actually would make all people in the country speak English, but it certainly would make those gosh darned numerated language options obsolete.)

That only applies to government lines, it won't change that businesses who wish to serve customers of other languages will still have other language options in their phone menus.

When I went to Spain, I learned the language (or at least tried); I didn't expect them to cater to me and my English.

It irks me that I have neighbors who still speak Spanish to me even though they've been here for a couple of years.  While I understand the difficulties of learning a new language, it seems to me that when one moves to another country, learning the language should be a priority anyway.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When I went to Spain, I learned the language (or at least tried); I didn't expect them to cater to me and my English.

It irks me that I have neighbors who still speak Spanish to me even though they've been here for a couple of years.  While I understand the difficulties of learning a new language, it seems to me that when one moves to another country, learning the language should be a priority anyway.

I'm curious, what do you mean by "went to Spain". Living there temporarily or just a visit. When I went on a cruise to Mexico I never once had to speak a word of English. Everyone who works with tourists learns the language.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When I went to Spain, I learned the language (or at least tried); I didn't expect them to cater to me and my English.

It irks me that I have neighbors who still speak Spanish to me even though they've been here for a couple of years.  While I understand the difficulties of learning a new language, it seems to me that when one moves to another country, learning the language should be a priority anyway.

I agree, that is annoying.  I feel like people who come to the country, stay, and seem to have little desire to try to learn the language are aggravating, but it still doesn't bother me when there are language options on call menus.  The former seems like a legitimate issue while the latter seems silly.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When I went to Spain, I learned the language (or at least tried); I didn't expect them to cater to me and my English.

It irks me that I have neighbors who still speak Spanish to me even though they've been here for a couple of years.  While I understand the difficulties of learning a new language, it seems to me that when one moves to another country, learning the language should be a priority anyway.

I'm curious, what do you mean by "went to Spain". Living there temporarily or just a visit. When I went on a cruise to Mexico I never once had to speak a word of English. Everyone who works with tourists learns the language.

I was stationed there when in the Air Force.  I knew I'd be leaving, but I didn't know when I'd be leaving (I was deployed for the first Gulf War).   I was in Moron de la Frontera, about 90 mi NE of Rota, and thus not a tourist area.  Many Spaniards, however, knew a decent amount of English from their public education.

Also, did you mean to write "...to Mexico I never once had to speak a word of Spanish"?  It makes more sense to me that way.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When I went to Spain, I learned the language (or at least tried); I didn't expect them to cater to me and my English.

It irks me that I have neighbors who still speak Spanish to me even though they've been here for a couple of years.  While I understand the difficulties of learning a new language, it seems to me that when one moves to another country, learning the language should be a priority anyway.

I agree, that is annoying.  I feel like people who come to the country, stay, and seem to have little desire to try to learn the language are aggravating, but it still doesn't bother me when there are language options on call menus.  The former seems like a legitimate issue while the latter seems silly.

Agreed.  It's not reasonable to expect their fluency on Day One, and to be honest, I don't mind if they never manage to get too much English under their belts; I just appreciate the effort when it's made, and am annoyed when it isn't.

Truth be told, I wouldn't mind the language options on private corporation phone lines/websites if I didn't have to find my wife's paperwork in her won language at the social security office.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Agreed.  It's not reasonable to expect their fluency on Day One, and to be honest, I don't mind if they never manage to get too much English under their belts; I just appreciate the effort when it's made, and am annoyed when it isn't.

Mmmm..... I dunno, they could be a refugee.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Agreed.  It's not reasonable to expect their fluency on Day One, and to be honest, I don't mind if they never manage to get too much English under their belts; I just appreciate the effort when it's made, and am annoyed when it isn't.

Mmmm..... I dunno, they could be a refugee.

Yes, as I indicated above, I can understand circumstances might prevent knowing the language for a bit.  But once you've settled here, I'd like to see a little effort at integrating, and I don't see that being a refugee changes the ability to do so.

I once met a girl who had the ability to say about four phrases in English.  I was on a satellite installation job.  I called the office looking for a translator and had no problem doing so, not even a little annoyance.  Why?  Because she sat there studying her English book while I worked.  Not speaking English is one thing, not bothering to try is another.

How does one state garner so much hate?

Quote from: "HuffPo"An Arizona anti-illegal immigration activist was convicted on Monday of killing two Latinos during a 2009 raid: nine-year-old Brisenia Flores and her father, Raul Flores. The killer, Shawna Forde, is a member of the Minutemen, which patrols the southern border vigilante-style to detect illegal entry into the country.

Although the shootings were never classified as a hate crime, Latino groups argue the murders reflect growing anti-immigrant sentiment within the United States. The details are chilling: Forde and two others entered the Flores home, allegedly looking for a million-dollar drug stash that never materialized, and shot both of Brisenia Flores' parents before turning the gun on the child.

As her mother played dead, Brisenia Flores said, "Please don't shoot me," before being shot twice in the head.

Quote from: "Sophus"How does one state garner so much hate?

Quote from: "HuffPo"An Arizona anti-illegal immigration activist was convicted on Monday of killing two Latinos during a 2009 raid: nine-year-old Brisenia Flores and her father, Raul Flores. The killer, Shawna Forde, is a member of the Minutemen, which patrols the southern border vigilante-style to detect illegal entry into the country.

Although the shootings were never classified as a hate crime, Latino groups argue the murders reflect growing anti-immigrant sentiment within the United States. The details are chilling: Forde and two others entered the Flores home, allegedly looking for a million-dollar drug stash that never materialized, and shot both of Brisenia Flores' parents before turning the gun on the child.

As her mother played dead, Brisenia Flores said, "Please don't shoot me," before being shot twice in the head.

That is so fucked up.