This was only a matter of time.

I hope this goes all the way to SCOTUS...and AZ gets their clock cleaned on this.

It could drive a wedge between police and their own communities, too, given the provision that allows people to sue the police if they feel they're not being aggressive enough at identifying undocumented aliens.

Oh goodie. More political ads that feature race-baiting, guilt trips, and lies. SSDD.

re: #3 Obdicut

It could drive a wedge between police and their own communities, too, given the provision that allows people to sue the police if they feel they're not being aggressive enough at identifying undocumented aliens.

This presents an untenable situation for the cops. Dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. Sued for not doing your job and sued for doing it too aggressively. I would not want to be a cop in AZ and have to figure that one out.

BTW, for the stalkers (or anyone else), my opposition to this steaming turd of legislation isn't because I favor illegal immigration, but because this statute is extremely bad law (and a very bad precedent).

re: #4 Ebetty

As in, that's what the Law and the Lawsuit will produce. Unadulterated idiocy on both sides.

re: #6 talon_262

BTW, for the stalkers (or anyone else), my opposition to this steaming turd of legislation isn't because I favor illegal immigration, but because this statute is extremely bad law (and a very bad precedent).

The Stalkers are not reasonable enough to see that. They don't think in such terms.

re: #7 Ebetty

As in, that's what the Law and the Lawsuit will produce. Unadulterated idiocy on both sides.

Which I am seriously beginning to think is the American political way...

What this will do, if the it is played right is bring a certain nasty right wing pimple into full view before it is ready for prime time.

Then it can be lanced.

re: #9 oaktree

That is the unintended consequences of the 1974/75 changes to campaign finance and their unholy alliance with advocacy groups. Every ruling and lawsuit since then, including the Citizens United case, has led us to this place.

Time to scrap the regulations and start over with something enforceable. True in politics, true on the Border, true in Nat'l Security. Bad actors = bad policy. The appalling, paranoid, race-baiting ads are just the tip of the iceberg.

The lawsuit argues a principle that doesn't make sense. If the federal government has a 55 mph speed limit on interstates, and if a state trooper stops somebody going 60, have they intruded on what is purely a federal matter?

If the federal government has laws against counterfeiting, and the local police pick somebody up passing counterfeit bills, is that an unconstitutional infringement on federal matters?

The federal government is almost always happy to have local authorities assist in the enforcement of federal law. So for them to claim now that the AZ law is unconstitutional because as a general rule no state authority may ever do anything to assist the feds in enforcing federal law, that's nonsense.

Some people seem to think that "unconstitutional" is just a long word for doubleplusungood. It's not. If the feds want to argue that the law is a bad idea, well, they can make that case to the AZ voters and see if they're persuaded to rescind it. If the feds want to make the case that the law, in its operation, will violate the civil rights of citizens by causing those who look as though they might be illegal immigrants to be asked for a DL, don't they need some evidence of how the law has played out before they make that charge?

The lawsuit is without foundation, is brought on constitutionally laughable grounds, and the people bringing it are not being straight about their motives, or the law, or the facts.

This one won't be easy. For example, states routinely piggy-back on federal income taxes, and demand their own cut. I know, taxes aren't exclusively a federal prerogative, but still, it's not entirely clear that Arizona can't do what they're trying to do. That's really the only issue. The "potential" for abuse isn't going to go anywhere.

Anyone have a link to the Complaint? I didn't see one in the Post article.

re: #2 talon_262

I hope this goes all the way to SCOTUS...and AZ gets their clock cleaned on this.

Unless and until there is some actual evidence of civil rights violations, and that does not include identifying and detaining actual illegal immigrants following a legitimate stop, this lawsuit is without foundation. There's just no way that AZ can lose. Not now. Later, as the law plays out in practice, could be another story.

re: #15 lostlakehiker

Unless and until there is some actual evidence of civil rights violations, and that does not include identifying and detaining actual illegal immigrants following a legitimate stop, this lawsuit is without foundation. There's just no way that AZ can lose. Not now. Later, as the law plays out in practice, could be another story.

Not something a lawyer typically tells a client.

re: #2 talon_262

I hope this goes all the way to SCOTUS...and AZ gets their clock cleaned on this.

I hope the SCOTUS votes the right way...

Citizens United has given me less than perfect trust in them at the moment...

re: #12 lostlakehiker

The federal government doesn't have any speed limits on interstates.

As for the rest of it: the law doesn't empower police to make arrests, as in all the cases you're giving. It mandates a certain behavior. The analogy doesn't work in any way at all.

The preemption argument in this case is that this behavior that's being mandated will actually make it harder to enforce federal immigration law.

Your analysis is really off-base and really weird.

The Feds just opened up a can of worms ,., IF Arizona can show that it has asked for the Feds to vigorously enforce the fed law and the feds had not, then it can be argued that the feds had abrogated their responsibility and the state had to to ensure what the feds are by constitution mandated to do (protect the borders)

re: #14 Radicchio ad Absurdum

Anyone have a link to the Complaint? I didn't see one in the Post article.

There's a little box titled "This Story". It's the second link in there.

The Justice Department argues that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility.

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

re: #19 sattv4u2

The Feds just opened up a can of worms ,., IF Arizona can show that it has asked for the Feds to vigorously enforce the fed law and the feds had not, then it can be argued that the feds had abrogated their responsibility and the state had to to ensure what the feds are by constitution mandated to do (protect the borders) citizenry

pimf

re: #18 Obdicut

The federal government doesn't have any speed limits on interstates.

As for the rest of it: the law doesn't empower police to make arrests, as in all the cases you're giving. It mandates a certain behavior. The analogy doesn't work in any way at all.

The preemption argument in this case is that this behavior that's being mandated will actually make it harder to enforce federal immigration law.

Your analysis is really off-base and really weird.

Of course the Federal government did say if the states didn't pass speed limits, they would cut off Federal dollars for highway upkeep.

re: #19 sattv4u2

The Feds just opened up a can of worms ,., IF Arizona can show that it has asked for the Feds to vigorously enforce the fed law and the feds had not, then it can be argued that the feds had abrogated their responsibility and the state had to to ensure what the feds are by constitution mandated to do (protect the borders)

What do you imagine the Feds would be needing to do to "protect the border" exactly?

re: #11 Ebetty

That is the unintended consequences of the 1974/75 changes to campaign finance and their unholy alliance with advocacy groups. Every ruling and lawsuit since then, including the Citizens United case, has led us to this place.

Time to scrap the regulations and start over with something enforceable. True in politics, true on the Border, true in Nat'l Security. Bad actors = bad policy. The appalling, paranoid, race-baiting ads are just the tip of the iceberg.

I see it as much as the continued desire to "win" above all else, which appears to be a very American, and a very human, condition.

Once that becomes the goal then the analysis will appear that shows that negative ads, mud-slinging, and emotional appeals work effectively enough with the American voter to win elections.

And once you win the election you and your party (and at this point you need the party to initially maintain office) get to reap the reward of having direct influence on policy and getting a bigger piece of the money thrown at politicians by industry and special interests.

I sometimes cynically view this as the "circus" we get to keep us entertained and distracted while the power brokers make the decisions that forward solely their short-term interests. And those interests are, and probably never have been, those that are best for the country or the world in general.

re: #3 Obdicut

It could drive a wedge between police and their own communities, too, given the provision that allows people to sue the police if they feel they're not being aggressive enough at identifying undocumented aliens.

The AZ law is extremely vulnerable to protest action. A large cohort of ID law opponents could easily be organized to simultaneously demand to have their citizenship validated in small jurisdictions. If they carried the least ID required by "normal" law, they wouldn't necessarily even fall into civil disobedience.

re: #21 rwdflynavy

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

So you think that each state should have to police its own borders on its own?

re: #12 lostlakehiker

If the feds want to argue that the law is a bad idea, well, they can make that case to the AZ voters and see if they're persuaded to rescind it.

That's pretty convoluted. The AZ legislature passed this, and the feds should take it to AZ voters? A federal referendum on a state ballot? Or what?

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Yes. However, the analogy still doesn't work at all. The complaint in the lawsuit is that this policy in Arizona interferes with federal immigration law, not that it is piggybacking onto it or supporting it.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

For example, they say that this will divert resources from identifying and stopping dangerous immigrants from entering the United States.

re: #27 jamesfirecat

So you think that each state should have to police its own borders on its own?

Nope, I think the federal government should do that.

re: #24 jamesfirecat

What do you imagine the Feds would be needing to do to "protect the border" exactly?

Manpower in border towns that are in trouble, surveillance cameras via drones, extend the fence, increase legal crossing points of entry

re: #30 rwdflynavy

Nope, I think the federal government should do that.

So what's so funny about "The Justice Department argues that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility." exactly if its a statement you agree with?

re: #31 sattv4u2

Manpower in border towns that are in trouble, surveillance cameras via drones, extend the fence, increase legal crossing points of entry

Fair enough. Would you meat me half way and say we should raise taxes to pay for those things?

re: #32 jamesfirecat

So what's so funny about "The Justice Department argues that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility." exactly if its a statement you agree with?

Whats so funny about it is that there is little to no action to back their words

1200 National Guard spread across the border is like trying to drain a bathtub with a thimble

re: #32 jamesfirecat

So what's so funny about "The Justice Department argues that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility." exactly if its a statement you agree with?

Because the federal government doesn't enforce existing immigration laws. That is why the basis of their law suit is so hilarious!

Arizona: Feds don't enforce immigration laws, we are going to do it!
Feds: Hey, you can't do that, it is our job!
Arizona: But you don't do your job!
Feds: That's a suin'!

re: #33 jamesfirecat

Fair enough. Would you meat me half way and say we should raise taxes to pay for those things?

No. We already PAY taxes to "pay for those things" THAT is THE 1st and foremost responsibility of the fed gov't, not providing Health Insurance

re: #25 oaktree

It is a circus. Circus Maximus. Unfortunately, we are choosing between Titus and Commodus. Neither good, nor moral. Just about the almighty dollar and power.

re: #37 Ebetty

It is a circus. Circus Maximus. Unfortunately, we are choosing between Titus and Commodus. Neither good, nor moral. Just about the almighty dollar and power.

Didn't he get flushed?!?!

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

What this will do, if the it is played right is bring a certain nasty right wing pimple into full view before it is ready for prime time.

Then it can be lanced.

That would be nice.

re: #16 Radicchio ad Absurdum

Not something a lawyer typically tells a client.

Quite true. In practice, in a court of law, either side can prevail without having any part of the law or the facts on its side. Witness the OJ trial.

re: #36 sattv4u2

No. We already PAY taxes to "pay for those things" THAT is THE 1st and foremost responsibility of the fed gov't, not providing Health Insurance

If we want a new service we'll either need to

1: Raise taxes.

2: Cut spending elsewhere.

3: Go deeper into debt.

So your current stance is #2 with funneling the money from act Obama got passed recently into more border security?

re: #40 lostlakehiker

Quite true. In practice, in a court of law, either side can prevail without having any part of the law or the facts on its side. Witness the OJ trial.

ugghh,,, I had to sit through it once ,, do I have to again!?!?

//

re: #38 sattv4u2

He was poisoned, then drowned. A fitting end.

re: #38 sattv4u2

I am SLOW today. LOL. Absolutely LOL. Ironic he got drowned though!

re: #40 lostlakehiker

Quite true. In practice, in a court of law, either side can prevail without having any part of the law or the facts on its side. Witness the OJ trial.

For example, you don't have any part of the law or the facts on your side, and you're saying Arizona can't lose-- even though you apparently haven't even read the Federal government's complaint.

re: #41 jamesfirecat

If we want a new service we'll either need to

1: Raise taxes.

2: Cut spending elsewhere.

3: Go deeper into debt.

So your current stance is #2 with funneling the money from act Obama got passed recently into more border security?

Securing the borders is NOT a "new service" It is the ongoing resposibility of the federal Gov't. What I am saying is that INSTEAD of passing the boondoggle Health Bill and instead of "spreading the wealth" with the Stimulus (that didn't) the feds should do what they ARE empowered and MANDATED to do

which is ,,,

re: #44 Ebetty

I am SLOW today. LOL. Absolutely LOL. Ironic he got drowned though!

:)

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Citing Conflict with Federal Law, Department of Justice Challenges Arizona Immigration Law

WASHINGTON - The Department of Justice challenged the state of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law, S.B. 1070, in federal court today.

CONTINUES

Complaint Filed (PDF)
Arizona PI Brief (PDF)

Top link also include other supporting documents.

re: #12 lostlakehiker

Even when we had it, the Feds never enforced the 55 mph speed limit, Congress simply threatened to withhold highway funding to States that chose not enforce it. Counterfeiting is a similarly poor example, when the real analogy is a State deciding to mint its own money and have its own monetary policy.

The federal government is almost always happy to have local authorities assist in the enforcement of federal law. So for them to claim now that the AZ law is unconstitutional because as a general rule no state authority may ever do anything to assist the feds in enforcing federal law, that's nonsense.

States can't declare War on their own, draft troops, set up embassies or make treaties. They can't deport on their own either. ICE should have one master and be allowed to prioritize, not be at the personal beck and call of every LEO in the nation.

re: #35 rwdflynavy

Because the federal government doesn't enforce existing immigration laws. That is why the basis of their law suit is so hilarious!

Arizona: Feds don't enforce immigration laws, we are going to do it!
Feds: Hey, you can't do that, it is our job!
Arizona: But you don't do your job!
Feds: That's a suin'!

Here's what is already happening without SB 1070 [it's a long article, worth reading in its entirety]:

[...]

The Secure Communities Initiative, which seeks to find and remove non-citizens convicted of crimes ranging from extortion to murder, began in October 2008 in the final months of President George W. Bush's tenure, and it has been picked up and aggressively deployed by the Obama administration.

In the past month alone, ICE has boosted the number of local law-enforcement agencies using the database from 197 in 20 states to 390 in 23 states. The agency's plan is to have the system in place nationwide at 3,100 jails by the end of 2013.

From late October 2008 through early May, about 240,000 criminal aliens have been identified through the Secure Communities database, said Richard Rocha, ICE deputy press secretary.

[...]

And that's in addition to what's being done under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Sorry to go OT so soon, but the latest idiocy from the Nontroversy-machine is quickly infecting the Pages.

Namely, the Bolden outreach to Muslim nations to participate more in NASA and space exploration has set off the Islam-haters big time, the ODS wheels are churning high speed, etc.

It's so stupid but it's what we get now from the Nontroversists.

re: #49 goddamnedfrank

Even when we had it, the Feds never enforced the 55 mph speed limit, Congress simply threatened to withhold highway funding to States that chose not enforce it. Counterfeiting is a similarly poor example, when the real analogy is a State deciding to mint its own money and have its own monetary policy.

States can't declare War on their own, draft troops, set up embassies or make treaties. They can't deport on their own either. ICE should have one master and be allowed to prioritize, not be at the personal beck and call of every LEO in the nation.

Actually, the Constitution says states can engage in war if they are invaded. No Fed approval required!

All the things you mention are specifically prohibited in the Constitution.

re: #46 sattv4u2

Securing the borders is NOT a "new service" It is the ongoing resposibility of the federal Gov't. What I am saying is that INSTEAD of passing the boondoggle Health Bill and instead of "spreading the wealth" with the Stimulus (that didn't) the feds should do what they ARE empowered and MANDATED to do

which is ,,,

I meant "new service" in the sense of that the Feds would be doing something that they were not currently doing, regardless of if they should have been doing it all along if we're going to start spend money on something we previously haven't (or haven't been spending as much money on) it has to come from somewhere. Hence why I was calling it a "new service" though I suppose saying we were going to expand an already existing service (as you will agree the feds are currently doing SOMETHING to police our borders, it just isn't enough) would have captured my point better.

I disagree with you VERY FIRMLY that the stimulus had no effect on the economy, but that is neither here nor there in regards to the border.

I also disagree with you that Obama's attempts to reform healthcare are a complete boondoogle (increase age up to which kids can make use of their parents' plans is a good thing to name just one advantage) and I think it is a good thing.

All that said, I respect your position that the fed might need to be doing more to police the border (what are we doing to try and keep illegals from rafting over through the gulf of Mexico?) as I live in Maryland and so have precious little (NO) first hand experience with the problems caused by immigration...

re: #53 jamesfirecat

I meant "new service" in the sense of that the Feds would be doing something that they were not currently doing,

Like enforcing the law!?! Securing the border !?!?!

:)

re: #52 KingKenrod

Actually, the Constitution says states can engage in war if they are invaded. No Fed approval required!

All the things you mention are specifically prohibited in the Constitution.

Don't give Arizona any ideas.

re: #51 freetoken

Sorry to go OT so soon, but the latest idiocy from the Nontroversy-machine is quickly infecting the Pages.

Namely, the Bolden outreach to Muslim nations to participate more in NASA and space exploration has set off the Islam-haters big time, the ODS wheels are churning high speed, etc.

It's so stupid but it's what we get now from the Nontroversists.

Link(s) please.

And do we really have to qualify each PC-divergent member of the forum as a 'hater'? I'm seeing more and more posts from a very small but very vocal coterie ranting about the haters. The message seems to be, "We must hate the haters", and it's totally absurd, divisive and redolent of a junior high-school mentality.

re: #55 jamesfirecat

Don't give Arizona any ideas.

You could say that LA and California already declared financial war against Arizona! (although I don't recall any of the LA newspapers or TV stations not going to Phoenix, staing in hotels, eating at restaurants et al during the suns/ Lakers playoff games,!!)

re: #53 jamesfirecat

(what are we doing to try and keep illegals from rafting over through the gulf of Mexico?)

We place Marine Corps facilities in the places they come ashore:

SAN DIEGO — The U.S. Border Patrol says two groups of seafaring, illegal immigrants have been caught coming ashore along Southern California's coast — including 18 people who landed at the Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton.

[...]

...when we're lucky...

re: #33 jamesfirecat

Fair enough. Would you meat meet me half way and say we should raise taxes to pay for those things?

Of course. Ten dollars a year from each of us would give ICE another three billion to work with. Ten thousand extra border guards, at 100 thousand dollars wages, benefits, and so on, would use up 1 billion of that. Leaving two thirds of the money for the rest of all that.

Border security and secure papers and a general tightening of immigration laws would not be all that expensive. In fact, we should put about a billion of that into helping those illegal immigrants we decide to not deport but regularize. Get them up to speed on English, for instance, or adult education if that is needed. Still leaves another billion for enforcement.

re: #56 ryannon

Link(s) please.

And do we really have to qualify each PC-divergent member of the forum as a 'hater'? I'm seeing more and more posts from a very small but very vocal coterie ranting about the haters. The message seems to be, "We must hate the haters", and it's totally absurd, divisive and redolent of a junior high-school mentality.

yeah ,, well ,,, your mother wears army boots!!

//

re: #60 sattv4u2

yeah ,, well ,,, your mother wears army boots!!

//

So she likes the style, but what does that have to do with anything?

Typical.

/

re: #59 lostlakehiker

Why do you want to tax babies? Think of the children!!

re: #61 ryannon

So she likes the style, but what does that have to do with anything?

Typical.

/

hater!

/

Alright, Billy Bob Neck fucking rocks.

Musical Response To “Creation Science 101″ by Billy Bob

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

Meanwhile AZ still suffers from drop houses, illegal immigration, elevated crime rates because of the higher crime rate amongst illegals and their children, and those who are trying to something about it can continue to be called racist right wingers. So I guess the message to those of us in AZ is just bend over and take it from the illegals because there's nothing you can do, and nothing the federal gov't is going to do to change the status quo.

re: #63 sattv4u2

hater!

/

Jellybean! Camel! SMOKER!

re: #59 lostlakehiker

In fact, we should put about a billion of that into helping those illegal immigrants we decide to not deport but regularize. Get them up to speed on English, for instance, or adult education if that is needed.

Sometimes all they need is permission.

ASU engineering grad returns to Mexico trying to do the right thing
[...]

Vazquez, 24, did not want to enter the United States illegally. But he was 12 and, despite his protests, did as his mother told him.

As he got close to college graduation, though, Vazquez knew he had gone as far as an illegal immigrant could go. Companies that hired college graduates did not look the other way when it came to immigration status, something Vazquez learned when he was denied college internships.

"I didn't want to get stuck in a low-end job and not be able to apply my degree to anything," he said.

Vazquez is seeking a waiver of grounds of excludability - essentially asking the government to forgive his illegal presence in the country and allow him to stay. Under the law, because Vazquez illegally remained in the country for so long after his 18th birthday, he is barred from the U.S. for 10 years.

Vazquez must make his case through paperwork. He waits in Mexico for the bureaucracy to churn out a decision.

"So far," Vazquez said, "the right way has been pretty hard."

[...]

re: #56 ryannon

Link(s) please.

And do we really have to qualify each PC-divergent member of the forum as a 'hater'? I'm seeing more and more posts from a very small but very vocal coterie ranting about the haters. The message seems to be, "We must hate the haters", and it's totally absurd, divisive and redolent of a junior high-school mentality.

Serious point you do make, though
Seems as if whenever someone does go off the PC trail they are called haters, racist, mouth breathers. Civil discourse is becoming a lost art here (on the internet ,, not specifically LGF)

I think it's the anonimity

re: #55 jamesfirecat

Don't give Arizona any ideas.

That could make for an interesting week in the headlines:

Mehserle Acquitted,
Oakland Burning,
Arizona invades sovereign nation,
Film at 11.

re: #64 Nimed

Alright, Billy Bob Neck fucking rocks.

Musical Response To “Creation Science 101″ by Billy Bob

[Video]

I have you hooked on him, huh!

re: #59 lostlakehiker

Of course. Ten dollars a year from each of us would give ICE another three billion to work with. Ten thousand extra border guards, at 100 thousand dollars wages, benefits, and so on, would use up 1 billion of that. Leaving two thirds of the money for the rest of all that.

Border security and secure papers and a general tightening of immigration laws would not be all that expensive. In fact, we should put about a billion of that into helping those illegal immigrants we decide to not deport but regularize. Get them up to speed on English, for instance, or adult education if that is needed. Still leaves another billion for enforcement.

I could get behind this, especially because ten thousand extra border guards would take at the very least a nibble out of our near double digit unemployment numbers.

re: #68 sattv4u2

Serious point you do make, though
Seems as if whenever someone does go off the PC trail they are called haters, racist, mouth breathers. Civil discourse is becoming a lost art here (on the internet ,, not specifically LGF)

I think it's the anonimity

I think the fluoride is polluting their Precious Bodily Fluids.

re: #72 ryannon

I think the fluoride is polluting their Precious Bodily Fluids.

BIG COLGATE IS RIPPING US OFF!

re: #65 robdouth

Meanwhile AZ still suffers from drop houses, illegal immigration, elevated crime rates because of the higher crime rate amongst illegals and their children, and those who are trying to something about it can continue to be called racist right wingers. So I guess the message to those of us in AZ is just bend over and take it from the illegals because there's nothing you can do, and nothing the federal gov't is going to do to change the status quo.

Don't be such a defeatist.

And the folks who wrote that law are racists. Doesn't have to mean that you are one just because that gets pointed out.

re: #73 sattv4u2

BIG COLGATE IS RIPPING US OFF!

Hater!

re: #45 Obdicut

For example, you don't have any part of the law or the facts on your side, and you're saying Arizona can't lose-- even though you apparently haven't even read the Federal government's complaint.

The complaint can't have any facts to go on, because the law hasn't yet gone into operation. I don't need to read the complaint to know that. The complaint is founded in a general principle that's nonsense, as everybody on both sides of the issue well knows. You included.

You just don't like the law, so you figure if it's a bad law, the best way to get it rescinded without this messy business of democracy is to get it revoked on the grounds that bad law is by definition unconstitutional, and any old reason will do.

"Arizona impermissibly seeks to regulate immigration by creating an Arizona-specific immigration policy that is expressly designed to rival or supplant that of the federal government," the Justice Department says in its legal brief. "As such, Arizona's immigration policy exceeds a state's role with respect to aliens, interferes with the federal government's balanced administration of the immigration laws, and critically undermines U.S. foreign policy objectives."

So what you're saying is that the current federal policy is to not enforce the law, and that if the feds decide not to enforce a law, any law, then no one else had better either.

What if it became federal policy to not enforce laws against kidnapping? As I say, this lawsuit is built around "principles" that are wall to wall nonsense. They only sound good because any reason is a good reason if it serves your desired end.

re: #70 sattv4u2

I have you hooked on him, huh!

That you did. He's really good. Looking forward to linking him ad nauseam.

re: #68 sattv4u2

Serious point you do make, though
Seems as if whenever someone does go off the PC trail they are called haters, racist, mouth breathers. Civil discourse is becoming a lost art here (on the internet ,, not specifically LGF)

I think it's the anonimity

It is something akin to road rage...people behave in a way they never would if they had to look someone in the eye.

re: #59 lostlakehiker

re: #71 jamesfirecat
I would happily kick in an extra $10 per person in my family IF that money was spent ONLY on that, and not thrown into a "general fund"

re: #72 ryannon

I think the fluoride is polluting their Precious Bodily Fluids.

And subverting their purity of essence!

re: #74 wrenchwench

Don't be such a defeatist.

And the folks who wrote that law are racists. Doesn't have to mean that you are one just because that gets pointed out.

Are the people that wrote the Fed law that states basically the same things racist also?

re: #80 jamesfirecat

And subverting their purity of essence!

No, that's the fault of the illegal immigrants.

re: #74 wrenchwench

I hear you, but anyone who supported the law because it was aimed at stopping or slowing illegal immigration get lumped in with any writers of the law who wrote it for less than honorable reasons.

There was a reason it enjoyed such overwhelming support in AZ and it's not becuase 70-80% of the state is racist, but it's because we're tired of federal inaction on changing the status quo, and we're tired of running deficits that are at least in part because of the huge drain on our state from illegal immigration.

re: #76 lostlakehiker

The complaint can't have any facts to go on, because the law hasn't yet gone into operation.

That is the craziest thing you've said yet. Obviously the feds can identify problems that will inevitably occur from this. That's a complete nonsense on your part.

You're really weird on some issues, man, you just get it wrong from top to bottom.

You just don't like the law, so you figure if it's a bad law, the best way to get it rescinded without this messy business of democracy is to get it revoked on the grounds that bad law is by definition unconstitutional, and any old reason will do.

Your attempts at interwebs psychiatry are as stupid as anyone else's.

re: #83 robdouth

I hear you, but anyone who supported the law because it was aimed at stopping or slowing illegal immigration get lumped in with any writers of the law who wrote it for less than honorable reasons.

There was a reason it enjoyed such overwhelming support in AZ and it's not becuase 70-80% of the state is racist, but it's because we're tired of federal inaction on changing the status quo, and we're tired of running deficits that are at least in part because of the huge drain on our state from illegal immigration.

How does illegal immigration take money away from the state?

re: #78 bratwurst

It is something akin to road rage...people behave in a way they never would if they had to look someone in the eye.

I'm talking about this forum. There's just no need for that kind of nastiness.

*sings Kumbaya to self*

re: #86 ryannon

I'm talking about this forum. There's just no need for that kind of nastiness.

*sings Kumbaya to self*

I hate Appalachian Missionary music.

I just browsed the complaint. It is interesting that they are coming at it from two directions: Supremacy and Commerce clause. It seems that anything they can't regulate under another provisions inevitable falls under the commerce clause. Makes sense given the amount of undocumented labor in the economy.

re: #88 Radicchio ad Absurdum

I just browsed the complaint. It is interesting that they are coming at it from two directions: Supremacy and Commerce clause. It seems that anything they can't regulate under another provisions inevitable falls under the commerce clause. Makes sense given the amount of undocumented labor in the economy.

Which is just fine with a lot of interests.

re: #87 Decatur Deb

I hate Appalachian Missionary music.

Take that, hater.

re: #67 wrenchwench

That's a tough call. Be a prick and keep him out? Or welcome somebody who will contribute big time. Umm, can I get that narrowed down to two choices?

Hello? What is wrong with us? The idea of immigration control is not to keep out the people we want in, it's to keep out the people we don't. Him, with any sense at all, we want.

re: #85 jamesfirecat

How does illegal immigration take money away from the state?

You're kidding,, right?

infrastucture strain ,,,public hospitals ,,,schools ,,, who do you think pays for those

re: #76 lostlakehiker

So what you're saying is that the current federal policy is to not enforce the law, and that if the feds decide not to enforce a law, any law, then no one else had better either.

No, it's federal policy to enforce the law. Your attempts to put words in my mouth are weak-sauces.

The complaint is very clear: they are saying, as an example, that this law interferes with the federal government's ability to target dangerous immigrants. You are ignoring the actual complaint, creating a strawman of it, and assuring Arizona they can't lose. It's incredibly strange to me that you think this will be at all convincing.

re: #85 jamesfirecat

Are you serious? How about a simple one related to my job in hospital finance. We can't refuse service to someone whether or not they are legal or illegal at our hospital (not saying we should, just stating that fact.) I work at a NFP hospital which means we get money back from local and federal government. We write off bad debt (gobs of it due to illegal immigrants coming into the hospital and not being able to pay their debts) The feds and state reimburse at least some of that money, which could have been spent somewhere else in the state.

Granted this is somewhat over-simplified, but taxpayer dollars help cover the huge shortfall from uninsured patients, which in AZ the vast majority of the uninsured are illegal immigrants.

re: #94 robdouth

re: #94 robdouth

which in AZ the vast majority of the uninsured are illegal immigrants.

Proof for this, any?

re: #86 ryannon

I'm talking about this forum. There's just no need for that kind of nastiness.

*sings Kumbaya to self*

your off key, Francis Scott!

re: #94 robdouth

Are you serious? How about a simple one related to my job in hospital finance. We can't refuse service to someone whether or not they are legal or illegal at our hospital (not saying we should, just stating that fact.) I work at a NFP hospital which means we get money back from local and federal government. We write off bad debt (gobs of it due to illegal immigrants coming into the hospital and not being able to pay their debts) The feds and state reimburse at least some of that money, which could have been spent somewhere else in the state.

Granted this is somewhat over-simplified, but taxpayer dollars help cover the huge shortfall from uninsured patients, which in AZ the vast majority of the uninsured are illegal immigrants.

So:

Control their numbers.
Make them legal.
Pay them fairly.
Tax them.
Put them under a medical insurance umbrella.

re: #94 robdouth

[Link: www.foxbusiness.com...]

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’ Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent to provide services.

According to the Comptrollers’ office, state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide services like education, health care and safety, but raised an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data, the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal immigrant population in 2006.

re: #84 Obdicut

Your attempts at interwebs psychiatry are as stupid as anyone else's.

Will inevitably occur? Why don't the wait until it does occur, then? I say it's because they're afraid their case will get weaker, not stronger. If they knew that their case would inevitably go from iffy to ironclad, they'd wait. A few weeks into the program, the emulsion will begin to develop and we'll see.

They're not fools. They want to win, so they're picking their best chance.

As to psychiatry, I'm not diagnosing a medical condition. I'm diagnosing a defect in logic. You don't need an MD to do that. Your reasoning is just faulty.

re: #92 sattv4u2

You're kidding,, right?

infrastucture strain ,,,public hospitals ,,,schools ,,, who do you think pays for those

I'd imagine that illegals being normal human beings need food, clothing and shelter and so they help contribute to those things every time they buy something through sales tax.

Likewise I'd imagine if they somehow manage to get a job by all rights they should have the same nibbles getting taken out of their paycheck same as anyone else, unless they're getting paid under the table in which case the person hiring them is at least partially to blame.

I'd also imagine that given what illegal immigrants tend to make they'd fall into the 47 or whatever percent that end up owing no federal income taxes so it's we wouldn't be loosing out on too much money their.

These are all things I imagine however so feel free to pop my nice shiny dreams with the hard thumbtacks of facts...

re: #98 Obdicut

[Link: www.foxbusiness.com...]

Similar research in France has produced similar results. One less talking point for the far-right National Front.

re: #51 freetoken

Sorry to go OT so soon, but the latest idiocy from the Nontroversy-machine is quickly infecting the Pages.

Namely, the Bolden outreach to Muslim nations to participate more in NASA and space exploration has set off the Islam-haters big time, the ODS wheels are churning high speed, etc.

It's so stupid but it's what we get now from the Nontroversists.

Yeah, they're still bleating about the bogus black panther thing too. Embarrassing.

re: #94 robdouth

Are you serious? How about a simple one related to my job in hospital finance. We can't refuse service to someone whether or not they are legal or illegal at our hospital (not saying we should, just stating that fact.) I work at a NFP hospital which means we get money back from local and federal government. We write off bad debt (gobs of it due to illegal immigrants coming into the hospital and not being able to pay their debts) The feds and state reimburse at least some of that money, which could have been spent somewhere else in the state.

Granted this is somewhat over-simplified, but taxpayer dollars help cover the huge shortfall from uninsured patients, which in AZ the vast majority of the uninsured are illegal immigrants.

Doesn't that mean your problem is that they're illegal but that they're poor?

Do we have some proof that illegals draining more money from AZ's hospital coffers than say the urban poor in a state like Maryland who need treatment and can't pay their bills either?

I haven't commented much today but I have been following the pages. Kudos to the lizards. There's some really good stuff in there.

re: #102 Killgore Trout

Yeah, they're still bleating about the bogus black panther thing too. Embarrassing.

Can you provide a link to these miscreants?

re: #99 lostlakehiker

Will inevitably occur? Why don't the wait until it does occur, then?

Thank you for admitting that your claim was baseless.

If they knew that their case would inevitably go from iffy to ironclad, they'd wait.

That their case is 'iffy' is a complete fabrication by yourself.

The reason that they don't want to wait is that they really are serious that this is going to fuck up attempts to catch dangerous immigrants and place a huge strain on ICE generally.

Why the hell does it make sense to you to say "They should wait before it should become a huge problem before they attempt to address it at all"?

As to psychiatry, I'm not diagnosing a medical condition. I'm diagnosing a defect in logic. You don't need an MD to do that. Your reasoning is just faulty.

You said that I just want to do something-- you're saying you understand my motives. You're right, though-- that's just a claim to be a psychic, rather than a psychiatrist. It's still really stupid of you to do.

re: #100 jamesfirecat

unless they're getting paid under the table in which case the person hiring them is at least partially to blame.

And thats who the feds (and locals) should be targeting,, the employers

I'd also imagine that given what illegal immigrants tend to make they'd fall into the 47 or whatever percent that end up owing no federal income taxes so it's we wouldn't be loosing out on too much money their

If they are not paying taxes yet GETTING services ,, thats my point,, it's more of a strain. Don't forget, some of the fed taxes you pay gets kicked back to the states. If "you" aren't paying fed taxes, thats less that the state gets but the state still has to provide you basic services

re: #103 jamesfirecat

See above. According to non-partisan analysis, states make tax money off of illegal immigrants.

re: #98 Obdicut

Meant to quote the post, not the link:

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’ Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent to provide services.

According to the Comptrollers’ office, state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide services like education, health care and safety, but raised an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data, the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal immigrant population in 2006.

Similar research in France has produced similar results. One less talking point for the far-right National Front.

re: #102 Killgore Trout

Yeah, they're still bleating about the bogus black panther thing too. Embarrassing.

Whats' "bogus" about the Black Panther 'thing"?
Were or were not those men standing outside a polling place with a club?

re: #98 Obdicut

[Link: www.foxbusiness.com...]

Maybe Texas doesn't adapt the AZ law because the trade off between downside and upside is different in AZ and TX? Obviously illegal immigration isn't all downside.

Texas is big and it has a much larger agricultural sector than does AZ. Illegal immigrants coming to TX are more likely to find work, and less likely to overwhelm public services. Each state has its own circumstances.

re: #107 sattv4u2

unless they're getting paid under the table in which case the person hiring them is at least partially to blame.

And thats who the feds (and locals) should be targeting,, the employers

I'd also imagine that given what illegal immigrants tend to make they'd fall into the 47 or whatever percent that end up owing no federal income taxes so it's we wouldn't be loosing out on too much money their

If they are not paying taxes yet GETTING services ,, thats my point,, it's more of a strain. Don't forget, some of the fed taxes you pay gets kicked back to the states. If "you" aren't paying fed taxes, thats less that the state gets but the state still has to provide you basic services

My point was that they wouldn't be "paying taxes" anyway even if they were here legally because they get enough tax credit back to owe nothing income taxes.

Also apparently...

[Link: www.foxbusiness.com...]

A majority of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%, according the Congressional Budget office.

Granted its Fox so I just had to chip off a bit of my soul to post that and believe its true...

re: #52 KingKenrod

Actually, the Constitution says states can engage in war if they are invaded. No Fed approval required!

You and I clearly read Article 4, Section 4 a bit differently:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

A guarantee of protection is not a right to engage in war unilaterally.

The other half of the section mainly owes its existence to the lowly oyster, along with the willingness of Marylanders and Virginians to murder each other over it.

re: #111 lostlakehiker

Maybe you should read the article.

Experts estimate Arizona benefits from similar revenue and economic gains from its illegal immigrant population because of similar tax structures and proportionate illegal immigrant populations based on state populations.

While not admitting to hiring illegal immigrants, business owners say it remains difficult to hire locally-based labor for certain tasks even with the recession, giving ample reasons for illegal immigrants to continue to seek work north of the border.

Arizona lettuce farmers, who produce the bulk of the nation’s domestic lettuce between November and February each year, will need 40,000 laborers to hand-pick greens. Most of that lettuce is grown in Yuma County, located near the Colorado River and the U.S.-Mexico border, where a local labor pool is simply unavailable to pick lettuce. Chili growers on the east part of the state need a similar labor force.

re: #105 ryannon

Can you provide a link to these miscreants?

Most of it's happening on Fox and Pajamas Media. Here's the Media Matters debunking: Doocy falsely claims DOJ "has not explained" decision in New Black Panther Party case

DAMMIT ,, an alarm just went off here (at work)

If it's not a false one, I have an RF leak somewhere!!

Not to worry though ,,, I would have to be exposed directly to it before I start glowing!!!

BRB

re: #116 sattv4u2

DAMMIT ,, an alarm just went off here (at work)

If it's not a false one, I have an RF leak somewhere!!

Not to worry though ,,, I would have to be exposed directly to it before I start glowing!!!

BRB

Be sure to protect your precious bodily fluids!

re: #115 Killgore Trout

Most of it's happening on Fox and Pajamas Media. Here's the Media Matters debunking: Doocy falsely claims DOJ "has not explained" decision in New Black Panther Party case

Ah, thank you. I thought you were referring to members posting on the Pages.

This problem is so new.

re: #95 Obdicut

Any studies are based on estimates because we are not allowed by law to ask the legal status of patients as they come through. HIPAA regulations make it impossible to know for sure how many illegals come through, but you just have to do the math for the estimated uninsured in AZ, and know the estimated number of illegal immigrants, and you got yourself a ballpark figure. I have studies here at my desk, but can't exactly scan them in and provide them. They should be pretty easy to find online I would think with the number of studies we have available in the healthcare business.

re: #113 goddamnedfrank

A guarantee of protection is not a right to engage in war unilaterally.

The other half of the section mainly owes its existence to the lowly oyster, along with the willingness of Marylanders and Virginians to murder each other over it.

Article I, section 10.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

re: #120 robdouth

Any studies are based on estimates because we are not allowed by law to ask the legal status of patients as they come through

Thank you for admitting that you have no proof at all for your assertion.

Given that 40% of undocumented aliens have health insurance, your assertion that they make up the vast majority of the uninsured is very weak, and in the absence of any proof, and the presence of the non-partisan Texan analysis, I think your case is pretty much busted.

Did you read that article?

re: #115 Killgore Trout

Most of it's happening on Fox and Pajamas Media. Here's the Media Matters debunking: Doocy falsely claims DOJ "has not explained" decision in New Black Panther Party case

I saw the story on CNN.

re: #97 Decatur Deb

Easier said than done when the Feds have no intention of doing the first thing on that list. Once you implement the other parts: "pay them fair", "put them under the insurance umbrella" you remove a lot of the benefit of hiring them in the first place, and you take away their market advantage of being paid under the table, not being subject to payroll taxes, and not having to be paid benefits. If you enforce all of those, then people will just start hiring Americans, and illegals will be out of a lot of work, unless they stand outside home depots and bypass all those regulations you just listed, like they do now.

re: #103 jamesfirecat

Doesn't that mean your problem is that they're illegal but that they're poor?

Do we have some proof that illegals draining more money from AZ's hospital coffers than say the urban poor in a state like Maryland who need treatment and can't pay their bills either?

But that's different.

If federal laws on immigration were effectively enforced, Maryland would still have all the problems it has today. Maryland, for that matter, has a far richer tax base than AZ. It is thickly populated with upscale earners.

If illegal immigrants were mostly rich, highly educated, law abiding apart from coming in illegally, and productive, AZ wouldn't be facing the problems it now has. Maybe there would still be some complaints; they're driving down lawyers' fee schedules or something, I dunno. But yes, it would be a different story.

re: #117 Killgore Trout

Be sure to protect your precious bodily fluids!

I'm old ,, and have had "that" procedure ,, I'm shooting blanks

oh ,, wait ,, did I type that out loud !?!?!

re: #124 robdouth

Easier said than done when the Feds have no intention of doing the first thing on that list. Once you implement the other parts: "pay them fair", "put them under the insurance umbrella" you remove a lot of the benefit of hiring them in the first place, and you take away their market advantage of being paid under the table, not being subject to payroll taxes, and not having to be paid benefits. If you enforce all of those, then people will just start hiring Americans, and illegals will be out of a lot of work, unless they stand outside home depots and bypass all those regulations you just listed, like they do now.

Feds just sent a few thousand extra eyes to the border, and a few billion dollars. The other effects you mention are features, not bugs.

re: #126 sattv4u2

I'm old ,, and have had "that" procedure ,, I'm shooting blanks

oh ,, wait ,, did I type that out loud !?!?!

Be happy you can still shoot, even if they're blanks.

re: #125 lostlakehiker

Why are you ignoring that the non-partisan Texan analysis said that Illegal immigrants actually bring in more tax money then is spent on them?

re: #127 Decatur Deb

Don't know what you mean by features, not bugs, but if you make it to where hiring illegals is the same as hiring legal workers (benefits, equal pay, etc.) what will be the benefit of hiring them? They will be passed up for legal workers, and then you'll be back to the place where their trying to bypass the legality issues and get paid under the table.

re: #127 Decatur Deb

Feds just sent a few thousand extra eyes to the border, and a few billion dollars. The other effects you mention are features, not bugs.

Not to mention the fence that we've been building...

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #114 Obdicut

Maybe you should read the article.

I don't believe the cases are all that similar. AZ has a large number of illegal immigrants crossing into AZ bound for other parts. These guys are pure downside for AZ, because they're not getting work in AZ. AZ is a small state, population-wise, and within that, its agricultural sector is relatively smaller than that of TX. You don't seriously mean to argue that AZ has a lot of arable land?

The same size rock landing in a big pond or a small one will splash less water on the banks if it's a big pond. The fact that TX has not made the same complaints as AZ is strong evidence that TX doesn't have the same problems. Unless you'd like to claim that TX is just so much nicer than AZ, full of people who are the soul of welcoming loving kindness, and they put up without complaint with the same troubles AZ has.

re: #127 Decatur Deb

Feds just sent a few thousand extra eyes to the border, and a few billion dollars. The other effects you mention are features, not bugs.

1200 national guardsmen (2400 "eyes")

Considering the vastness of the border, and that it has to be patrolled 24/ 7 , that number is like trying to drain a bathtub with a thimble

re: #129 Obdicut

Given the fact that as I said, you can't ask someone because of HIPAA violations whether they are legal or illegal, there is no accurate way to calculate the costs in hospital services illegals incur. So any numbers you quote are at best guessing games. There are so many best guesses layered in that you can't be sure where they are overestimating benefits from illegals or underestimating costs. How do you calculate the amount of roadwork costs for a state can be attributed to illegal immigrants when they can't even be sure exactly how many illegals there are in a state like AZ or TX?

re: #130 robdouth

Don't know what you mean by features, not bugs, but if you make it to where hiring illegals is the same as hiring legal workers (benefits, equal pay, etc.) what will be the benefit of hiring them? They will be passed up for legal workers, and then you'll be back to the place where their trying to bypass the legality issues and get paid under the table.

Then they will go home, willingly.

re: #132 lostlakehiker

You have absolutely nothing to back up your assertions, though. Nothing.

hese guys are pure downside for AZ, because they're not getting work in AZ.

Again, read the article:

While not admitting to hiring illegal immigrants, business owners say it remains difficult to hire locally-based labor for certain tasks even with the recession, giving ample reasons for illegal immigrants to continue to seek work north of the border.

Arizona lettuce farmers, who produce the bulk of the nation’s domestic lettuce between November and February each year, will need 40,000 laborers to hand-pick greens. Most of that lettuce is grown in Yuma County, located near the Colorado River and the U.S.-Mexico border, where a local labor pool is simply unavailable to pick lettuce. Chili growers on the east part of the state need a similar labor force.

re: #133 sattv4u2

1200 national guardsmen (2400 "eyes")

Considering the vastness of the border, and that it has to be patrolled 24/ 7 , that number is like trying to drain a bathtub with a thimble

All the spare troops we have are little more than a cup.

re: #137 Decatur Deb

All the spare troops we have are little more than a cup.

It sounds like what people want is an entire army, like a new army, formed from scratch that just sits at the border at a cost of trillions, to make sure guys don't cross

That makes a lot of sense to me, that sounds like a really efficient and wise use of tax dollars

re: #134 robdouth

As long as the sampling method is consistent, that's irrelevant.

re: #138 WindUpBird

It sounds like what people want is an entire army, like a new army, formed from scratch that just sits at the border at a cost of trillions, to make sure guys don't cross

That makes a lot of sense to me, that sounds like a really efficient and wise use of tax dollars

I have such an army.
I'll help.
:evilgrin:
Image: 633557903226002248-FascismYoureallythinkitwillbethisobviousDemotivator.jpg

re: #137 Decatur Deb

All the spare troops we have are little more than a cup.

re: #137 Decatur Deb

All the spare troops we have are little more than a cup.

We have an active and reserve of almost 3 million

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

As of December 31, 2009, a total of 1,137,568 personnel are on active duty within the United States and its territories (including 84,461 afloat)

I'm sure they could send more

re: #138 WindUpBird

It sounds like what people want is an entire army, like a new army, formed from scratch that just sits at the border at a cost of trillions, to make sure guys don't cross

That makes a lot of sense to me, that sounds like a really efficient and wise use of tax dollars

Not so,, see #141

re: #123 Spare O'Lake

I saw the story on CNN.

The other news outlets are covering the story too but the Fox News/PJM version is from a different reality.

re: #108 Obdicut

See above. According to non-partisan analysis, states make tax money off of illegal immigrants.

This is such a known fact!re: #46 sattv4u2

Securing the borders is NOT a "new service" It is the ongoing resposibility of the federal Gov't. What I am saying is that INSTEAD of passing the boondoggle Health Bill and instead of "spreading the wealth" with the Stimulus (that didn't) the feds should do what they ARE empowered and MANDATED to do

which is ,,,

haha is this the new Rush talking point? On Modnay there were no less than three conservative talkers on the dial in Portland, all bringing up the health care bill again. They must have gotten the fax from the mothership!

re: #140 Varek Raith

hahahaha

The government calls it "THE ARMY!" A more alarmist name would be THE KILLBOD FACTORY

re: #144 WindUpBird

haha is this the new Rush talking point? On Modnay there were no less than three conservative talkers on the dial in Portland, all bringing up the health care bill again. They must have gotten the fax from the mothership!

I sent no such signal!
*Targets turbolasers on WuB*

re: #142 sattv4u2

Not so,, see #141

You don't think calling up reserves costs crazy money?

re: #144 WindUpBird

Only thing worse than Rush is Lars Larson. Most ignorant man in the world.

re: #146 Varek Raith

I sent no such signal!
*Targets turbolasers on WuB*

Shit, they've got guns! *turns flying winnebago around*

Just randomly poking around the internets and found this report. It's from 2003, so the information isn't totally up to date. However, it is an interesting snapshot to the reality of the healthcare for immigrants issue:

[Link: content.healthaffairs.org...]

...Health care costs are not the major component around which a policy debate about the fiscal benefits or burden of immigrants should focus. A more comprehensive analysis would incorporate the taxes paid by immigrants, including some Social Security taxes for which they might not ever claim benefits. But it also should include other public benefits received—in particular, public school costs. Unlike health care,where immigrants’ take-up rates are relatively low, the school age children of all types of immigrants attend school. Our primary debate should be about the benefits and costs of financing the schooling of the children of immigrants, not about providing them with health care.

Some good stuff in there...

re: #144 WindUpBird

haha is this the new Rush talking point? On Modnay there were no less than three conservative talkers on the dial in Portland, all bringing up the health care bill again. They must have gotten the fax from the mothership!

I would have no idea
I
A) don't live in Portland
and
B) don't listen to Rush
and
C) the only faxes I've gotten this week are spams from people wanting to sell me a new roof or sell my business for me or sell me health insurance

re: #147 WindUpBird

You don't think calling up reserves costs crazy money?

What part of 1,137,568 personnel are on active duty within the United States didn't you get?

re: #149 WindUpBird

Shit, they've got guns! *turns flying winnebago around*

Image: Spaceballs.jpg

re: #83 robdouth

I hear you, but anyone who supported the law because it was aimed at stopping or slowing illegal immigration get lumped in with any writers of the law who wrote it for less than honorable reasons.

There was a reason it enjoyed such overwhelming support in AZ and it's not becuase 70-80% of the state is racist, but it's because we're tired of federal inaction on changing the status quo, and we're tired of running deficits that are at least in part because of the huge drain on our state from illegal immigration.

The support for the bill was wildly overstated by Rasmussen. All the reasons I've seen for the "necessity" of that bill has been hogwash of the "increasing crime" variety. The whole thing is a ploy to elect more right wingers by building and pandering to a base of riled up people.

re: #148 Ebetty

Only thing worse than Rush is Lars Larson. Most ignorant man in the world.

ahahaha LARZ! he's local to me too, he's in Portland. He's sorta like if you averaged out all the consravtive shows, and then made the delivery more wooden. I got some dish on his show from a moderate conservative talk show I was on the air at as a guest. NOBODY in portland radio likes him, basically he's seen as a vapid idiot who abuses his staff and just repeats talking points ad nausem.

re: #139 Obdicut

Also from your article:

"If there is a fiscal burden that illegal immigrants impose on taxpayers, it’s at the local level in education and health care services, Griswald and other studies said. Because an estimated 60% of illegal immigrants are uninsured and have to rely on emergency-room services, local hospitals have to absorb the cost of illegal immigrants’ emergency care costs."

So basically you're article only looks at it from the states perspective only and not Total cost to everyone in the state. If local government spends more on education and if Hospitals eat the cost of uninsured illegals, that's not factored into that numbers, but hey I'm sure that $424 Million "profit" has to be much more than the amount of bad debt written off by all the hospitals of TX because of ED services and other services used by illegal immigration. Hey if the state doesn't pay it directly, it doesn't factor into the "cost" of illegal immigration. Just gets passed along to the rest of us in higher insurance premiums and higer costs if you try to do any of your medical procedures out of pocket. But it's not technically a cost, so yay profit.

OT: The 2nd Netherlands goal did not involve offsides.

A reader points out that I have incorrectly applied the offside law on that second Dutch goal — if Van Persie was onside when Sneijder took the initial shot, than he was onside, period. My bad! Second goal was good!

re: #81 sattv4u2

Are the people that wrote the Fed law that states basically the same things racist also?

The Fed law does not states basically the same thing.

[I forgot this was in my comment composition box and had to trim it from my last comment. My apologies for any confusion caused by the delay in posting.]

You don't think there's a few countries that could spare the American bases and let them come on home? Sure would stimulate the AZ economy- there's already a bunch of empty houses they could live in...

re: #152 sattv4u2

What part of 1,137,568 personnel are on active duty within the United States didn't you get?

Do you think mobilizing guys to the border also is free? :D

Gosh, I didn't see a whole line of army bases and ot and cold running supplies piped right up to the border, you know it costs money to set up shop there?

How many permanent structrures will we build on the border to house these guys, provide them supply infrastructure?

Again, trillions.

And that;s not counting the business lost as the supply of illegal labor destroys our economy.

re: #130 robdouth

Don't know what you mean by features, not bugs, but if you make it to where hiring illegals is the same as hiring legal workers (benefits, equal pay, etc.) what will be the benefit of hiring them? They will be passed up for legal workers, and then you'll be back to the place where their trying to bypass the legality issues and get paid under the table.

Legal workers are less likely to do stoop labor, unless you pay them at a level commensurate with the crippling pain that goes with it. Illegal immigrants pay into social security, but don't collect. A net result is that many of our legal retirees can afford to eat a balanced diet while buying their cheap mexican-subsidized meds in Mexico, with a social security check partially funded by those same Mexicans.

Hurray!

re: #156 robdouth

If local government spends more on education and if Hospitals eat the cost of uninsured illegals, that's not factored into that numbers, but hey I'm sure that $424 Million "profit" has to be much more than the amount of bad debt written off by all the hospitals of TX because of ED services and other services used by illegal immigration.

Yes, it probably is. Can you provide any facts, figures, or sources that argue otherwise, or do you simply have assertion? Given that that is almost half the amount of all services spent on illegal immigrants, it seems extremely likely the private cost is lower than that amount-- and if you're going to count private cost, you have to count private benefit too-- the

$17.7 billion in additional gross state product in 2005 alone.

re: #154 wrenchwench

The support for the bill was wildly overstated by Rasmussen. All the reasons I've seen for the "necessity" of that bill has been hogwash of the "increasing crime" variety. The whole thing is a ploy to elect more right wingers by building and pandering to a base of riled up people.

In arrizona? NO! I'm shocked!

re: #161 goddamnedfrank

Legal workers are less likely to do stoop labor, unless you pay them at a level commensurate with the crippling pain that goes with it. Illegal immigrants pay into social security, but don't collect. A net result is that many of our legal retirees can afford to eat a balanced diet while buying their cheap mexican-subsidized meds in Mexico, with a social security check partially funded by those same Mexicans.

Hurray!

Work harder! Then endure nativist finger waggling!

re: #160 WindUpBird

Move the goalposts much

"we would have to call up reserves,, that costs money"

"OOPPSS ,, we wouldn't have to call up reserves, we'd have to bring in actives ,, that costs money"

"OOPPPSS ,,, if they chase away illegals , that will cost money !!!"

Anybody said that 'federal inaction' made the AZ law necessary? 'cuz if so I have a link I need to put up!

re: #155 WindUpBird

I was at a Talkers mag event a couple of years back. That man is so wooden, so ignorant, so totally self-absorbed it really made me wonder if he wasn't Rush's long-lost son. YUCK. No one had nice things to say and were astonished Clear Channel picked him up for the national nighttime gig. I booked two clients on his show, that was enough. He's so desperately seeking access and connections to power, it was just too smarmy for words. ICK!

Portland's nice though. Beautiful! Been there a few times, clean and gorgeous. Loved the jazz fest on the river. (one of my corporate clients was a sponsor)

re: #165 sattv4u2

It all costs money. The goalposts aren't moving: WindUp is just kicking a lot of balls through them.

re: #165 sattv4u2

Move the goalposts much

"we would have to call up reserves,, that costs money"

"OOPPSS ,, we wouldn't have to call up reserves, we'd have to bring in actives ,, that costs money"

"OOPPPSS ,,, if they chase away illegals , that will cost money !!!"

Where am I moving the goalposts? I'm saying we can't afford it. We still can't afford it.

If you can promise me that mobilizing all those troops to the border is free of charge, then cool :)

re: #168 Obdicut

It all costs money. The goalposts aren't moving: WindUp is just kicking a lot of balls through them.

What is THE roll of the feds?

re: #164 WindUpBird

Its great how one of the props we exploit to keep our country running is actually the main scapegoat for so many of our problems!

re: #169 WindUpBird

see 170

re: #170 sattv4u2

What is THE roll of the feds?

23 degrees to port?

Jumping on the thread very late ... but it seems to me that the Obama administration and the Brewer/Arizona administration need to find a compromise here. If the President is the healer in chief that he advertised in the campaign, he will not sacrifice Arizona just for votes. That would be the opposite of being a healer. He needs to see what Arizona is asking for and figure out a way to incorporate their legitimate needs into the larger plan.

Please note the emphasis on the word legitimate. Some of the yahoos supporting this law are trouble and their claims may not rise to the level of "legitimate." But many others are citizens with legitimate concerns. And Washington needs to do the magnanimous thing and set aside politics for the good of the country. This should not be just another issue to be mined for votes. Obama HAS the job ... now do it and you'll get it again in 2012. This is too important an issue. It has potential ripple effects far and wide: the dreaded "unintended consequences" that always pop up.

re: #170 sattv4u2

What is THE roll of the feds?

Natural 20, so sorry, that's a hit despite your cloak of deflection.

re: #173 Varek Raith

23 degrees to port?

I prefer a Zinfindal!

re: #174 _RememberTonyC

"Sacrifice Arizona"?

Lol megahyperbole.

re: #175 Obdicut

Geek!

re: #174 _RememberTonyC

What are the legitimate concerns?

re: #175 Obdicut

Natural 20, so sorry, that's a hit despite your cloak of deflection.

Good non-answer,, thanks

re: #180 sattv4u2

its a silly rhetorical question Satt, and you know it.

In that situation you have to expect silly answers :D

I think I'll go outside and play with my leaky waveguide and see how much RF I can endure

BBL

re: #178 windsagio

Geek!

Only a geek would know that..
Which makes you... A GEEK!
:P

re: #162 Obdicut

So you provide an article that doesn't supply the local costs they say they didn't include, and I'm supposed to come up with figures for you? Are you retarded? You're own article states that it doesn't include healthcare costs that local hospitals eat or the local education costs. I can tell you how much bad debt, we as just one hospital chain of many in AZ report in one given year, and given the article states that 60% of illegal immigrants have no insurance, how much of that bad debt should we assume is going to cover illegals? 20%? 30%?

re: #181 windsagio

its a silly rhetorical question Satt, and you know it.

In that situation you have to expect silly answers :D

humor me,,

Problem is,, nobody is willing to SAY it ,,,

re: #180 sattv4u2

Your question was so vague as to be useless, except for making a really fucking awesome THACO joke from.

re: #167 Ebetty

I was at a Talkers mag event a couple of years back. That man is so wooden, so ignorant, so totally self-absorbed it really made me wonder if he wasn't Rush's long-lost son. YUCK. No one had nice things to say and were astonished Clear Channel picked him up for the national nighttime gig. I booked two clients on his show, that was enough. He's so desperately seeking access and connections to power, it was just too smarmy for words. ICK!

Portland's nice though. Beautiful! Been there a few times, clean and gorgeous. Loved the jazz fest on the river. (one of my corporate clients was a sponsor)

We have our beer festivals on the Williamette, probably in the same park you saw the jazz fest at, it's all very awesome :D

Lars gets a national show, and Rick Emerson gets canned from his morning gig at KUFO. ARGGGH. Oh well, he's got a podcast and he's kicking ass, and Lars is still dull as doorknobs.

re: #19 sattv4u2

The Feds just opened up a can of worms ,., IF Arizona can show that it has asked for the Feds to vigorously enforce the fed law and the feds had not, then it can be argued that the feds had abrogated their responsibility and the state had to to ensure what the feds are by constitution mandated to do (protect the borders)

No kidding... and the administration is not getting a lot of support from their own side...

"Arizona Democrats urge Obama not to sue over controversial immigration law"

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) on Monday sent a sharply worded letter to President Barack Obama urging him not to sue.

“I believe your administration’s time, efforts and resources would be much better spent securing the border and fixing our broken immigration system,” the two-term congressman wrote in the letter. “Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for help from Washington. … [A] lawsuit won’t solve the problem. It won’t secure the border, and it won’t fix our broken immigration system.”

[snip]

Amazing how reality strikes these ideologues when their paycheck is at stake... LOL

[Link: thehill.com...]

re: #183 Varek Raith

I wear my geek badge proudly!

re: #175 Obdicut

Natural 20, so sorry, that's a hit despite your cloak of deflection.

*reaches for more fritos* "I'm using that 20-sided from now on!"

re: #184 robdouth

So you provide an article that doesn't supply the local costs they say they didn't include, and I'm supposed to come up with figures for you? Are you retarded?

Yes, I suffer from several crippling cognitive impairments. One of them is that when I've provided facts and figures and the person I'm talking to has nothing at all to back up his claims and starts insulting me, I conclude that he'll never actually back up his claims and stop talking to him.

All things considered, it's a pretty handy form of retardation.

KY-Sen: Tied up

I know Kos' polling credibility is under question these days but It's interesting to see the results with and with Rassmussen.

re: #177 windsagio

"Sacrifice Arizona"?

Lol megahyperbole.

you're better than that ... really ... you didn't get the point I made at all? Compromise is what is needed, but you seem to disagree.

re: #191 Obdicut

Apologies for the fucked up bold tag.

re: #179 Obdicut

What are the legitimate concerns?

easy question ... people on both sides of the political aisle can even agree on a few. why don't you take a shot at it?

re: #192 Killgore Trout

KY-Sen: Tied up

I know Kos' polling credibility is under question these days but It's interesting to see the results with and with Rassmussen.

With/without
/I stink

re: #193 _RememberTonyC

I think real compromise is impossible as long as that kind of language is being used. It sets the midpoint where it really shouldn't be.

Emotionalism and over-the-top claims are exactly why we got into this mess, and are no part of solving it.

re: #193 _RememberTonyC

What compromise do you see as possible, given that the main federal complaints are that this law interferes with federal immigration enforcement?

The feds are asserting this law makes the immigration situation worse, rather than better. One of the reasons they give is that it will overwhelm ICE and make it much harder for them to catch dangerous immigrants, which seems extremely reasonable to me.

re: #191 Obdicut

Not really when you provide an article that decides to ignore a huge portion of costs because they're not incurred by the states and then you tell me I'm supposed to provide those numbers. Non-partisan or not, it's not very thorough and you're resting your entire case on an incomplete report as if it's the infallible truth on where we should start this debate.

The fact is there aren't any good accurate number that show the total cost and total benefit in dollars to a state.

re: #195 _RememberTonyC

easy question ... people on both sides of the political aisle can even agree on a few. why don't you take a shot at it?

Because I asked you. What reasonable concerns? Until I discovered that the 'crime surge' was not actually true, I thought that concerns about crime were reasonable. However, since that's not true:

What reasonable concerns?

re: #199 robdouth

so wait, is the problem here that obdi provided a reference and you disagree with it, but can't come up with any of your own links?

yow.

re: #200 Obdicut

Its the know-nothing party all over again. Most of those illegals are even Catholic!

re: #152 sattv4u2

The Federal government's legal action to consolidate the continued exploitation of the illegals at the same time that the failed stimulus allows high unemployment rates to fester, would seem to be creating potentially explosive political pressures.
The millions upon millions of unemployed sit at home and stew as their benefits run out and their savings are pissed away, like a toxic witch's brew in a pressure cooker with a faulty seal.
Do the growing ranks of the hopelessly unemployed really care whether the illegals are doing jobs which they would be happy to do? I doubt it, but as things go from bad to worse they may be looking for scapegoats.
Those troops may come in handy all right...

re: #202 windsagio

Its the know-nothing party all over again. Most of those illegals are even Catholic!

NO. THEY ARE TERRIST.
/

re: #203 Spare O'Lake

It's kind of you to worry that the unemployed are going to revenge themselves on the Republicans that ended the unemployment benefits, but I think you're vastly underrating the civil obedience and moral character of United States citizens.

re: #205 Obdicut

Spare knows Americans, better than all of us!

re: #201 windsagio

No, if you read the article, the problem is that it completely omits the cost of local education and the cost of healthcare that hospitals eat. A search for an all inclusive number comes up zilch. That's why there are no provided numbers. No one takes all costs or benefits into account. Ob's numbers was only what the benefit is to the state budget, not the entire cost to the state as a whole. If they lose hundreds of millions in healthcare services, since the state doesn't eat those costs, they aren't factored in. So that's the problem.

re: #200 Obdicut

Because I asked you. What reasonable concerns? Until I discovered that the 'crime surge' was not actually true, I thought that concerns about crime were reasonable. However, since that's not true:

What reasonable concerns?

since i do not live in arizona, my perspective is that of an "outsider" commenting on a situation based on sometimes superficial info. But I try to empathize with those on the "inside," and I try to be fair. If I lived in an Arizona town where there was a spike in the violence level, whether the targets were Arizonans or not, that would be troubling to me. If drug wars are spilling even one inch into Arizona because of a foreign neighbor's unwillingness to control its side of the border, that would cause grave concern to me. And the govt should see THAT side of it instead of using only its own prism to view the situation. It's a very big deal with implications far beyond Arizona. On more than this single issue.

re: #201 windsagio

He's actually making a semi-reasonable claim now-- that these numbers are very hard to ascertain.* Which just makes his original statement:

in AZ the vast majority of the uninsured are illegal immigrants.

All the more inexplicable, since he's now saying that he can't possibly know that to be true.

*Though I did provide the best-available information on the subject.

Any response from John D McCainworth on this yet? Is he still going full-bagger to help him win his primary next month?

re: #205 Obdicut

It's kind of you to worry that the unemployed are going to revenge themselves on the Republicans that ended the unemployment benefits, but I think you're vastly underrating the civil obedience and moral character of United States citizens.

The united states, where the blame but not the power goes to the guy who have 58-59% of the vote!

re: #208 _RememberTonyC

If I lived in an Arizona town where there was a spike in the violence level, whether the targets were Arizonans or not, that would be troubling to me.

But there is no such spike. Crime rates have been declining, not going up.

So again: what reasonable concerns?

re: #207 robdouth

so you're objecting to a source.

Sounds like its still the best source you could find. If its inaccurate, try to find those numbers elsewhere.

For instance, when we were talking about this yesterday, WW came up with the number of illegals in prison, and I came up seperately with the number of PEOPLE in prison (both in AZ), along with some other stats, but not that first one. Between the 2 we were able to come up with some interesting information.

re: #197 windsagio

I think real compromise is impossible as long as that kind of language is being used. It sets the midpoint where it really shouldn't be.

Emotionalism and over-the-top claims are exactly why we got into this mess, and are no part of solving it.

may i ask how old you are? even approximately?

re: #141 sattv4u2

We have an active and reserve of almost 3 million

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

As of December 31, 2009, a total of 1,137,568 personnel are on active duty within the United States and its territories (including 84,461 afloat)

I'm sure they could send more

Sorry, been on the phone. We have Marines plus 10 combat divisions, rotating through 2 wars. If all our actives were on the border including typists, there would be 150 or so feet between them.

re: #214 _RememberTonyC

may i ask how old you are? even approximately?

Don't you DARE ask me!!

//

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

.. a look at statistics from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency and the FBI indicate that both the number of illegal crossers and violent crime in general have actually decreased in the past several years.

According to FBI statistics, violent crimes reported in Arizona dropped by nearly 1,500 reported incidents between 2005 and 2008. Reported property crimes also fell, from about 287,000 reported incidents to 279,000 in the same period. These decreases are accentuated by the fact that Arizona's population grew by 600,000 between 2005 and 2008.

According to the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Institute, proponents of the bill "overlook two salient points: Crime rates have already been falling in Arizona for years despite the presence of unauthorized immigrants, and a century's worth of research has demonstrated that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born."

The battle continues: Reid Re-Reposts Angle's Old Website -- Even After Threat Of Lawsuit

re: #214 _RememberTonyC

may i ask how old you are? even approximately?

//If you're not old enough to run for president, you're not old enough to be taken seriously! (Cue various Nixon from Futureama noises)

re: #214 _RememberTonyC

sure, but be careful with how you use the info :D

I'm coming up on 35 in November.

Interesting thing is I've become consistently more liberal as I've aged/grown up.

re: #208 _RememberTonyC

If drug wars are spilling even one inch into Arizona because of a foreign neighbor's unwillingness to control its side of the border, that would cause grave concern to me.

Except for the "unwillingness" part, this is what I think is a legitimate concern. However, SB 1070 is not a legitimate response, because it does nothing to alleviate that concern.

re: #205 Obdicut

It's kind of you to worry that the unemployed are going to revenge themselves on the Republicans that ended the unemployment benefits, but I think you're vastly underrating the civil obedience and moral character of United States citizens.

Really... then how come a favorite topic is how the Christian right, and the militias and the John Birchers and etal: are "stockpiling" weapons and are a threat to the whole country?

re: #215 Decatur Deb

Sorry, been on the phone. We have Marines plus 10 combat divisions, rotating through 2 wars. If all our actives were on the border including typists, there would be 150 or so feet between them.

I never stated "all" should be deployed

What I DID say is that 1,200 out of 1,137,568 personnel who are on active duty within the United States isn't enough

re: #221 wrenchwench

Except for the "unwillingness" part, this is what I think is a legitimate concern. However, SB 1070 is not a legitimate response, because it does nothing to alleviate that concern.

it put the issue square into the feds court where it belongs...the silver lining to this law

re: #222 Walter L. Newton

I think any attempts at unrest by those groups will be quickly quashed. The greater danger, as Charles has done such a good job of showing, is how their views are being mainstreamed into the GOP. It's not violent revolution that makes me worry, it's that Birchers and Paulites are now quite welcome in the Republican party.

re: #223 sattv4u2

I never stated "all" should be deployed

What I DID say is that 1,200 out of 1,137,568 personnel who are on active duty within the United States isn't enough

Maybe we should wonder what some of those 1, 137,568 people on active duty are currently doing?

Because if they're guarding our nuke plants or nuke silos, I really would rather have them doing that then guarding the border thanks!

re: #220 windsagio

sure, but be careful with how you use the info :D

I'm coming up on 35 in November.

Interesting thing is I've become consistently more liberal as I've aged/grown up.

Geezer.
/

re: #205 Obdicut

The question is not so much whether the hopelessly unemployed can be manipulated, but rather whether the political leadership will be cynical enough to offer up the scapegoats for sacrifice.

re: #227 Varek Raith

I know, totally ruins my rep!

re: #229 windsagio

I know, totally ruins my rep!

Well, get used to yelling at squirrels to get off your lawn!
:)

re: #218 Killgore Trout

The battle continues: Reid Re-Reposts Angle's Old Website -- Even After Threat Of Lawsuit

Good for Reid. Let Sharron Angle explain her insanity, preferably on live TV.

re: #206 windsagio

Spare knows Americans, better than all of us!

I worry about youse guys.

re: #217 Obdicut

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

Meanwhile this is what Fox is running today...
Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds

The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Federation for American Immigration Reform

In December 2007, FAIR was identified as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).[26] FAIR has responded to this charge by claiming that there is no factual basis for the accusation;[27] that FAIR has compiled a long record of mainstream credibility and respect on immigration issues and has always opposed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion; and that the accusation is an "act of desperation, resulting from the SPLC’s failure to convince the American people of their viewpoint."[28]

FAIR has been criticized by the International Relations Center as producing "policy rhetoric [that] is often inflammatory, clearly anti-immigrant, and partisan."[29] In 2005, an article by Leonard Zeskind in the liberal political magazine, The American Prospect, called FAIR "the anti-immigration movement’s most powerful institution".[30] It further asserted FAIR has cooperated with "white nationalists".[30]

FAIR has also been criticized for accepting contributions from the Pioneer Fund. Between 1982 and 1994, FAIR received $1.2 million from the foundation.[30] The Pioneer Fund focuses on projects it perceives will not be easily funded due to controversial, racial, or pro-eugenics subject matter.[31] It was described by the Sunday Telegraph as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics" in 1989.[32] FAIR has responded to this criticism by asserting that the Fund clearly states that it supports equal opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race, religion, national origin, or ethnicity; that other major institutions, including universities and medical facilities in the United States and other countries, have also accepted grants from the Fund;[33] and that the Fund's contributions to FAIR were used only for the general operation of the organization.[28]

Fucking Nazis.

re: #217 Obdicut

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

John McCain was on This Week Without Stephanoplous saying the exact opposite. That violent crime is on the increase at the border. He got his butt handed to him by the panel who called him a flat out liar, as they should.

re: #209 Obdicut

No I said we can't know the amount of money spent on services. Vast Majority was a bad faux pas, because it's only a solid majority, such as the 60% mentioned in the article you posted, which is why I said vast majority. My apologies on the vast, but 60/40 is a big split to me.

re: #223 sattv4u2

I never stated "all" should be deployed

What I DID say is that 1,200 out of 1,137,568 personnel who are on active duty within the United States isn't enough

It's not enough, and it's not the right kind. They don't have the skill sets of the Border Patrol. Sending combat troops to chase the half of illegals who don't come through the turnstiles is a PR stunt.

re: #224 albusteve

it put the issue square into the feds court where it belongs...the silver lining to this law

It was designed to end up in court. That's where its author, Kris Kobach, makes his money. Money that comes from taxpayers. Tea partiers should be hatin' on that guy!

re: #234 marjoriemoon

John McCain was on This Week Without Stephanoplous saying the exact opposite. That violent crime is on the increase at the border. He got his butt handed to him by the panel who called him a flat out liar, as they should.

Well, "they" are coming up here just to cause accidents on our interstates, after all.
//

re: #235 robdouth

No I said we can't know the amount of money spent on services. Vast Majority was a bad faux pas, because it's only a solid majority, such as the 60% mentioned in the article you posted, which is why I said vast majority. My apologies on the vast, but 60/40 is a big split to me.

I wonder how that 40% have insurance compares to how likely your average American citizen is to have it...

re: #212 Obdicut

But there is no such spike. Crime rates have been declining, not going up.

So again: what reasonable concerns?

so the media invented all of the stories? mexican drug gangs are drinking tea at 4pm and nobody is doing ANY killing in the region. is that what you are saying? no political assassinations in Mexico ... no sir! (Mexico has a large border with Arizona) No reason to worry about such a stable neighbor. Mexico has never used the USA as a human dumping ground for its citizens ... or have they? Maybe someone will just say I'm anti Mexican because its much easier to play that cheap card instead of occasionally listening to legitimate concerns that some locals may have. Have some empathy for them, even if they are mostly Republicans.

re: #216 sattv4u2

Don't you DARE ask me!!

//

older than dirt, no doubt

re: #233 Killgore Trout

Meanwhile this is what Fox is running today...
Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds

Even more reason to get them on a path to citizenship.

Oh, I'm supposed to think something different I guess...

re: #238 darthstar

and behead people. says brewer.

re: #240 _RememberTonyC

so the media invented all of the stories? mexican drug gangs are drinking tea at 4pm and nobody is doing ANY killing in the region. is that what you are saying? no political assassinations in Mexico ... no sir! (Mexico has a large border with Arizona) No reason to worry about such a stable neighbor. Mexico has never used the USA as a human dumping ground for its citizens ... or have they? Maybe someone will just say I'm anti Mexican because its much easier to play that cheap card instead of occasionally listening to legitimate concerns that some locals may have. Have some empathy for them, even if they are mostly Republicans.

Those stories could still all be true, but then your problem would be that crime exists at all rather than that there are more crimes being commited this year than last year, IE crime is on the rise...

re: #225 Obdicut

I think any attempts at unrest by those groups will be quickly quashed. The greater danger, as Charles has done such a good job of showing, is how their views are being mainstreamed into the GOP. It's not violent revolution that makes me worry, it's that Birchers and Paulites are now quite welcome in the Republican party.

Yeah, this. Violent groups and extremists would be quickly squashed.

The problem is the rhetoric of these groups and of the far right nutjobs like the Oathkeepers, Paulians, and Birchers being mainstreamed into the GOP and into the national political discourse.

re: #230 Varek Raith

I find myself actually thinking 'damn kids!' sometimes.

It terrifies me.

re: #212 Obdicut

This is a tricky subject because this issue came up before and the numbers were quoted on the amount of violence per capita, not violence overall, and it stated certain time periods (I don't have the link provided by a poster here at the time.) Given that AZ was one of the fastest growing states in the last 20 years (look at the amount of electoral votes we've gained the last two censuses (censi? like syllabi?) ) It is technically true that "violence has gone down" but since it's per capita and the population has grown quite rapidly, the overall amount of violence is actually up. It's a common misconception.

re: #221 wrenchwench

Except for the "unwillingness" part, this is what I think is a legitimate concern. However, SB 1070 is not a legitimate response, because it does nothing to alleviate that concern.

i see it as a cry for help more than a great piece of legislation. there are compromises that are possible.