Turnover of AZ Law...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Raven

if you had a magic wand ...........

and with one sweep suddenly deported every single illegal alien
never to return.............

the economy would crash so hard it could never recover.

let's give it a shot and see what happens the economic forcast is pretty bleak, we could just pull an Obama if it fails and claim that things would have "been even worse" if we'd not done it

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Raven

if you had a magic wand ...........

and with one sweep suddenly deported every single illegal alien
never to return.............

the economy would crash so hard it could never recover.

Originally Posted by scottw

let's give it a shot and see what happens the economic forcast is pretty bleak, we could just pull an Obama if it fails and claim that things would have "been even worse" if we'd not done it

Gotta agree with scottw. With the amount of money spent for social services, increased law enforcement, insurance costs due to crime and free hospital care, it'd be tough to convince me that we wouldn't see a net-benefit.

Here's an old study:

The Center for Immigration Studies reported in 2004: "Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household."[

And that's just the cost to the federal government. Also, the illegal problem has increased significantly since 2002.

Here are some numbers for the County of Los Angeles:

Michael D. Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor for the 5th District, announced in August 2009: "Figures from the Department of Public Social Services show that children of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County collected nearly $22 million in welfare and over $26 million in food stamps in June 2009. Projected over a 12 month period, this would exceed $575 million dollars. Annually the cost of illegal immigration to Los Angeles County taxpayers exceeds $1 billion dollars, which includes $350 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $500 million in welfare and food stamps allocations. Twenty-four percent of the County’s total allotment of welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States."

How about:

Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration.[

I'd gladly give up 1% of my wealth to be rid of the problems that come with illegal immigration.

Then there's the cost to states to give these people who have no respect for our laws an education:

Using the U.S. INS statistics on how many illegal immigrants are residing in each state and the U.S. Dept of Education's current expenditure per pupil by state, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, known for its anti-illegal alien stance, has estimated cost of educating illegal alien students was as follows:[27]
State Illegal Alien Students
California $3,220,200,000
Texas $1,645,400,000
New York $1,306,300,000
Illinois $834,000,000
New Jersey $620,200,000
For all 50 states $11,919,900,000

...

During April 2006, Standard & Poor's analysts wrote: "Local school districts are estimated to educate 1.8 million undocumented children. At an average annual cost of $7,500 (averages vary by jurisdiction) per student, the cost of providing education to these children is about $11.2 billion."[

But, I'm just a crazy moonbat liberal...

[Raven]

it's the labor end of it..... i'm referring to

you'd better learn to grow and pick your own food....

because the pickers would all be gone

and most white Americans (or non latino's)
wouldn't fill their shoes....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raven

it's the labor end of it..... i'm referring to

you'd better learn to grow and pick your own food....

because the pickers would all be gone

and most white Americans (or non latino's)
wouldn't fill their shoes....

But that would be an opportunity for another government bailout--to save the growing and picking industry. Another stimulus package, perhaps, of about $800 billion, to allow the growing and picking industry to raise their wages and hire white Americans. An adequate amount of that money could be used to buy, say, 60% of the stock in the growing and picking industry as a government investment. This would ensure that the growing and picking industry would continue to adhere to the higher wages necessary to employ white Americans and would also give government the power to demand the correct quality of produce and working conditions. Government owning, er, having the major share of the industry could favor it over cheaper imports from third world countries, creating a sort of People's monopoly on something so essential as food--similar to the coming Health Care. The benevolent government will ensure that We the People have the best food, the best health, the best cars, and the best of whatever else may fail and needs to be restored with stimulus. And what remains of the $800 billion could be set aside for future election, er, investment and recovery purposes. The crashed economy resulting from deportation of illegals would be a smashing opportunity not to waste a crisis.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by detbuch

would be a smashing opportunity not to waste a crisis.

~
i see the opportunity of Katrina's damage and of this gulf oil spill
as two "smashing opportunities" having gone to waste thus far.

Seems to me that the response to foreign disasters always takes precedence and even gets a more rapid response....from the feds.

the whole cutting of straight channels in the Marshland (which has resulted in making it disappear) and the Levies built by the army corps of engineers as the biggest blunders
in modern history.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Another stimulus package, perhaps, of about $800 billion, to allow the growing and picking industry to raise their wages and hire white Americans.

Why should they raise their wages?

Clearly the free market as found level in the form of hard working laborers, reasonable margins and a product that's affordable for consumers.

-spence

[Raven]

Originally Posted by spence

Why should they raise their wages?

Clearly the free market as found level in the form of hard working laborers, reasonable margins and a product that's affordable for consumers.

-spence

you guys can throw around partisanship or run the numbers all ya want... but i look at their E-coli product their sellin me that's essentially a sponge that has soaked up a bunch of commercial sprays of all kinds or absorbed them in the roots and say No freakin way! DUDEs... because even at the cheap labor rates they have, they still have to throw quality out the window (meaning pesticide free)to produce enough volume to make a buck with all the after refrigeration from California, Arizona (where- ever) to here...
~
they have these special squirting wands as they drive down the rows that spray the undersides.........
of the plants to outwit the mighty bugs and create a good looking............ but highly toxic product.

affordable

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Raven

you guys can throw around partisanship or run the numbers all ya want... but i look at their E-coli product their sellin me that's essentially a sponge that has soaked up a bunch of commercial sprays of all kinds or absorbed them in the roots and say No freakin way! DUDEs... because even at the cheap labor rates they have, they still have to throw quality out the window (meaning pesticide free)to produce enough volume to make a buck with all the after refrigeration from California, Arizona (where- ever) to here...
~
they have these special squirting wands as they drive down the rows that spray the undersides.........
of the plants to outwit the mighty bugs and create a good looking............ but highly toxic product.

affordable

Don't buy them then. Justifying the illegal's presence here by saying that food prices will go up is insane.

You don't want chemicals, pesticides and genetically modified fruits and veggies, then by Certified Organic and **Do the Research**. Support your local farmers. Buy what's in season. Or join a farmers co-op. Keep the money locally and add jobs to our local economy.

Supermarkets can take their bitter, hard, light pink and barely ripened tomatoes and shove em. There's nothing like a locally grown, vine ripened tomato.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Why should they raise their wages?

Clearly the free market as found level in the form of hard working laborers, reasonable margins and a product that's affordable for consumers.

-spence

Yes, the free market "found" a level that was provided by the Federal Government allowing that level to exist. If the Federal Government tended to the duties it was originally intended to perform instead of gobbling up powers that were supposed to belong to others, it would have the time to solve the massive illegal alien population that the free market "finds" is willing to work harder and for less than "white folks" and "non-latinos". And States, such as AZ, from whom the Federal Government has stolen so much, wouldn't have to attempt to solve a legitimate Federal Government function. And yet, the Federal Government, having already usurped so much State, local, and individual power, sues AZ to stop it from helping the over-bloated Federales do what they are supposed to do. Our free market is for our free and individual citizens to enjoy, to populate, and to create. It is for our citizens to decide for whom they will work and for how much. And if the market is overstocked with citizens seeking work, the wages will, competitively go down. If less seek the work than is needed, the wages will go up. And a whole series of cascading economic results ensues. Illegal aliens should not be allowed to skew the market against the citizens.

[striperman36]

They are here illegally, admit it sign up or be taken to the exit.

Friend's SIL owes back taxes on wages earned by illegally who was using her SSN. Tried to file a work comp found out someone already had one in her name.

IRS garnered her wages for SS tax and federal, criminal court case found against her by judge, appealing to higher court would take more money than what is needed to be paid.

Take them all either make them legal or send them away,

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Raven

it's the labor end of it..... i'm referring to

you'd better learn to grow and pick your own food....

because the pickers would all be gone

and most white Americans (or non latino's)
wouldn't fill their shoes....

I buy as much of my produce locally as I can. It tastes better, is better for you and doesn't have all the trash sprayed on it like industrial vegetables. A little bit of research goes a long way in seeing what companies pay a fair (meaning legal) wage.

I'd much rather pay more for my food and allow governments to subsidize farmers in this country to pay legal Americans a fair wage, than to have those same farmers pay illegals to pick vegetables below minimum wage and then send that money back to their home country. Hell, if they want to go through the appropriate avenues to become a legal citizen and work in the fields, I fully support that.

Also, one possible resolution to a potential lack of willing field works are convicts. Make arrangements with farmers for non-violent, well-behaved prisoners to work on the farms and put those people to constructive use- states already use prisoners to clean trash from the highways.

With millions of unemployed legal American citizens, the excuse of "they work the jobs that Americans don't want" to validate reasons for allowing border-hoppers to stay here is shameful.

Originally Posted by detbuch

But that would be an opportunity for another government bailout--to save the growing and picking industry. Another stimulus package, perhaps, of about $800 billion, to allow the growing and picking industry to raise their wages and hire white Americans. An adequate amount of that money could be used to buy, say, 60% of the stock in the growing and picking industry as a government investment. And the rest could be set aside for future election, er, investment and recovery purposes. The crashed economy resulting from deportation of illegals would be a smashing opportunity not to waste a crisis.

Completely off topic and nonsense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Completely off topic and nonsense.

Off topic??? Which topic--the ignore function--debate poisoned by partisan politics--the Arizona law--Feds compensating States--similar issues with freebies--people should be giving Obama credit--trying times--magic wand--crashed economy--etc.? My nonsense addressed some of those, in an intentionally nonnsensical way, tying in the overall ongoing political nonsense of which the Federal District court's decision to stay the AZ law is nonsensical part of.

Also, I apologize for editing the post that you quote at the same time that you were responding to it. So your response does not have my full post, which is more nonsense, so it doesn't matter.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

With millions of unemployed legal American citizens, the excuse of "they work the jobs that Americans don't want" to validate reasons for allowing border-hoppers to stay here is shameful.

You are right on, JD. Seems as if it's "below" a lot of people to get their
hands dirty.

Does anyone know out of the 10-11million illegals here actually work on farms or
for commercial fruit and vegetable growers???

Being it is seasonal work, are they collecting unemployment off season?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Gotta agree with scottw. With the amount of money spent for social services, increased law enforcement, insurance costs due to crime and free hospital care, it'd be tough to convince me that we wouldn't see a net-benefit.

Here's an old study:

And that's just the cost to the federal government. Also, the illegal problem has increased significantly since 2002.

Here are some numbers for the County of Los Angeles:

How about:

I'd gladly give up 1% of my wealth to be rid of the problems that come with illegal immigration.

Then there's the cost to states to give these people who have no respect for our laws an education:

But, I'm just a crazy moonbat liberal...

+1 (not the moonbat liberal part)

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the debate is poisoned by the partisan nature of politics, especially in the current times.

The GOP power base has declared that there's really no room for tolerance on immigration issues. McCain, Bush 43 etc... were all hammered by their own party for taking a pragmatic position.

This has let the nut jobs mingle with the Republicans. I do think many pushing the AZ law were motivated by racism and a sense of stopping a Hispanic invasion.

That's not to say that there are reasonable AZ folks who support the law. Certainly there's a sense of outrage and that the Federal government isn't doing enough to stop the problem, and this is a National issue.

Obama's general policy position doesn't seem to be all that far from Bush. And recent reports seem to indicate he's been even more aggressive in cracking down on illegals.

Under Obama, More Illegal Immigrants Sent Home : NPR

I'd think people should be giving Obama credit for his success during these trying times.

-spence

Spencism Alert, some commonality, some partisanism, some sprinkling of whackjobs associating with other party, followed by some redirection. Love ya kid, but sometimes you really make me chuckle

Support for AZ law:

May 2010 WSJ/MNC: First Read - Poll: Nearly two-thirds back AZ law

From NBC's Mark Murray

Nearly two-thirds back AZ law.

Here's another set of numbers from the new NBC/WSJ poll we're teasing:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans back Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law, which makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. The law also requires local and state law enforcement officials to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they're in the country illegally.

Sixty-four percent favor this law, while 34 percent oppose it. But those numbers are essentially reversed among Latinos -- with 70 percent of them opposing the law, and only 27 percent supporting it.

Even though almost two-thirds of the public supports Arizona's law, nearly an identical number (66 percent) believe it will lead to the discrimination of Latino immigrants who reside in the U.S. legally.

Gallup April 29: More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona's new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it.

I'd put more numbers in but they do images of the poll -v- text )

CNN - couple days ago:

CNN poll: Most back Arizona law but cite concerns about effects

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* Fifty-five percent of those polled say they favor Arizona's immigration law
* Fifty percent say it will not reduce illegal immigration
* Arizona law is set to go into effect Thursday
* Critics say law will lead to racial profiling; supporters say its aim is to enforce federal law

Washington (CNN) -- Most Americans support Arizona's new law on illegal immigration, but according to a national poll, a majority think the controversial measure will increase discrimination against Hispanics while not necessarily making a dent in the problem.

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey also indicates that Hispanic and whites don't see eye to eye over the law.

Numbers roughly in line with that biased Rasmussen:

Opposed to the DOJ challenging the AZ law:

56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Law; 61% Favor Similar Law In Their State
Thursday, July 08, 2010

Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.

These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Spencism Alert, some commonality, some partisanism, some sprinkling of whackjobs associating with other party, followed by some redirection. Love ya kid, but sometimes you really make me chuckle

I don't buy the polls, or at least don't think the really reinforce the point.

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.

Why would people support a bill they think will lead to more discrimination?

Because the polls are probably more reflective of the fact that people just want the government to do more, rather than specific endorsement for the more controversial elements of the AZ legislation.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't buy the polls, or at least don't think the really reinforce the point.

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.

Why would people support a bill they think will lead to more discrimination?

Because the polls are probably more reflective of the fact that people just want the government to do more, rather than specific endorsement for the more controversial elements of the AZ legislation.

-spence

this is Patrick Kennedy logic

[justplugit]

LOL, it's amazing how we all agree if a poll is going our way, but if
it doesn't we say it's flawed.
Ya have to look at a group of polls and look at the trend to see
if they are pointing in one direction or the other.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.

Why would people support a bill they think will lead to more discrimination?
-spence

That the bill might lead to discrimination, or that people think it will, is not the test. As judge Bolton said, the Federal Government must demonstrate that the AZ law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument. (Of course, she contradicted her own directions and ruled on hypotheticals.) The fact is, almost any bill, or law can, and has led to accusations of discrimination. If the test for a law to exist is that it cannot potentially lead to "discrimination", a whole lot of ordinances have to be revoked.

The potential for a law to lead to discrimination does not necessarily lay in the law, but in its application by individual enforcers. The fault is usually not in the law, but in racially biased individuals. Rather than blaming and disavowing valuable law, when it is applied in a discriminatory fashion, the individual who misuses the law should be prosecuted--don't blame the law.

So it is not necessarily a contradiction if supporters of the AZ law think it might lead to discrimination but still support it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That the bill might lead to discrimination, or that people think it will, is not the test. As judge Bolton said, the Federal Government must demonstrate that the AZ law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument. (Of course, she contradicted her own directions and ruled on hypotheticals.) The fact is, almost any bill, or law can, and has led to accusations of discrimination. If the test for a law to exist is that it cannot potentially lead to "discrimination", a whole lot of ordinances have to be revoked.

The potential for a law to lead to discrimination does not necessarily lay in the law, but in its application by individual enforcers. The fault is usually not in the law, but in racially biased individuals. Rather than blaming and disavowing valuable law, when it is applied in a discriminatory fashion, the individual who misuses the law should be prosecuted--don't blame the law.

So it is not necessarily a contradiction if supporters of the AZ law think it might lead to discrimination but still support it.

In this case you have a target demographic that's pretty well defined and a law with the potential to impact the daily life of a very large number of legal citizens and non-citizens who appear to fit the profile.

I'd think the risk factor here is extremely high and more than a simple perhaps.

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't buy the polls, or at least don't think the really reinforce the point.

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.
-spence

Spence even CNN talking heads say 55 % of americans agree with the AZ law.

All Judge Bolton did was point out to Arizona lawmakers the three sections of the law that needs fine-tuning and the law would likely be enforceable. Ah, good old reasonable suspicion........................oops!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! When an officer of the law has reason to believe that a crime is about to be committed or has been committed.

[JohnR]

Hey, Spence, let me clear something out for you.

Yes, many Americans feel that there may be some potential increased discrimination but the majority of Americans recognize a few simple, easy to factor points:

1) If I am pulled over for potential illegal or suspicious activity I need to produce my identification - AND I WAS BORN here. Someone not here legally should not have a higher level of protection than those here legally.

2) People that are not citizens should go though proper LEGAL channels to become citizens. Ignoring the law when convenient is breaking the law.

3) There are more problems created by illegal citizens than legal citizens, be it law enforcement, costs and entitlements, taxes, etc.

Would love to type out more but going to bed.

Please give me three reasons why we are better off as we are now with porous borders?

[justplugit]

AMEN ,JR.
As Americans we should be Proud to show we are citizens of the United States especially since our ancestors waited their turn to come here legally, studied and became citizens,adopted the US to be their home and called themselves Americans and worked to make a better life for their families. No handouts.

Showing ID is no different then showing your voting registration card in order to have the ,privlidge to vote.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

1) If I am pulled over for potential illegal or suspicious activity I need to produce my identification - AND I WAS BORN here. Someone not here legally should not have a higher level of protection than those here legally.

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.

2) People that are not citizens should go though proper LEGAL channels to become citizens. Ignoring the law when convenient is breaking the law.

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

3) There are more problems created by illegal citizens than legal citizens, be it law enforcement, costs and entitlements, taxes, etc.

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

Please give me three reasons why we are better off as we are now with porous borders?

Again, that's not the point. The legal argument against the AZ law isn't that illegals are good for the country, I'd think only a very small minority would voice this opinion.

Although, you do seem to be proving the point I was trying to make.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.

-spence