Dispatches from the Creation Wars

"Immigants. I knew it was dem. Even when it was de bears, I knew it was dem."

Posted by: Captain Mike | April 29, 2010 12:14 PM

Given the rather consistent talk about how they were "tired of no action from the Federal level" on immigration combined with the also consistent procrastination by Federal- level Republicans, I'd say that the real reason for this law is so that the GOP has a talking point in the upcoming mid- term elections. Ultimately, they want to pin the blame for this law on the Democrats.

Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | April 29, 2010 12:34 PM

I live in AZ. let's see how you feel about your poor little abused illegal aliens when one of them plows into your daughter's car while driving drunk as a skunk. Or when one of them shoots your father at a convenience store to steal cigarettes.

It's bad enough that we have domestic criminals. We are stupid to put up with foreign criminals. AZ has finally had enough.

Let's get a real guest worker program going so the people who just want to better their lives can do it legally. But first we have to stop the invasion, law-abiding and otherwise.

Posted by: uke | April 29, 2010 12:57 PM

"Illegal immigrants are terrorizing Arizona legislators?"

Yes. They're threatening to become citizens and vote.

that'd be quite a trick, given that it's presently impossible for them to do so.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 29, 2010 1:01 PM

uke, #6: let's see how you feel about your poor little abused illegal aliens when one of them plows into your daughter's car while driving drunk as a skunk. Or when one of them shoots your father at a convenience store to steal cigarettes.

Hmm. I can't see how my feelings about losing a loved one would depend on the perpetrator's immigration status. But maybe I'm funny that way.

Posted by: Chiroptera | April 29, 2010 1:05 PM

Weren't the 9-11 terrorists illegal aliens? Maybe that's what he's talking about. Granted, saying that most terrorists are illegal aliens does not mean that most illegal aliens are terrorists.

Fining the crap out of people who hire illegals would solve the problem without using the TSA airline travel type crackdown.

The man don't want a law that will actually work, though.

Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2010 1:16 PM

I really, really hope Arizona manages to deport even a fraction of their immigrant labor - just to watch their economy tank as a result.

Posted by: Patrick | April 29, 2010 1:27 PM

asdf @12: maybe I'm just missing the sarcasm here, but most of the 9-11 terrorists had valid visas.

Posted by: Tacroy | April 29, 2010 1:38 PM

You're right. 45% of the terrorists were illegal aliens, not a majority.

Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2010 1:46 PM

Richard, #19: Do other people routinely carry citizenship documentation with them?

I guessing these nuts think that a driver's license is proof of citizenship (which, come to think of it, I don't even have). Which is funny when I think that some of these people don't believe that a Hawaiian birth certificate is proof of citizenship.

Posted by: Chiroptera | April 29, 2010 1:57 PM

Ask Kenniwick Man about illegals.

Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2010 2:10 PM

Illegal immigrants are terrorizing Arizona legislators?

WELL, AT LEAST NOW THEY'VE GOT AN EXCUSE!!!

Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | April 29, 2010 2:12 PM

Under the measure, passed this week and sent to the governor, police would have to stop and question anyone they suspect of being in this country without legal authorization.

Would police have to take any action against anyone they suspect of hiring an illegal immigrant? Oh wait, cops don't regularly patrol workplaces, so they're not very likely to get any such suspicions, are they?

Notice how selective their outrage is here? They almost NEVER say anything about people who hire illegals until you press them on it first; at which point they trot out the usual limp-wristed "of course, we strongly disapprove of that too" qualifier, then go back to pretending illegals are the cause of all evil and of course it's not racial profiling aimed only at Mexicans and who would ever think our brave and dedicated law-enforcement officers would ever abuse their power?

Fining the crap out of people who hire illegals would solve the problem...

So why has this not been done already?

And no, it wouldn't solve the problem, because the dirt-poor immigrants would still be coming here, each one hoping to get a break regardless of what our laws say, because their prospects here would still look better than what they left behind. And that will continue to be the case until: a) we build a solid wall with machine-gun emplacements all along it; and b) job prospects start looking better on the south side of said wall (or the Catholic Church changes its mind about birth-control).

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 29, 2010 2:18 PM

@23 Chiroptera

(puts on tin-foil hat purchased at recent tea party)

By definition, illegal immigrants increase crime, as their presence alone is a crime! The act of them being here is a crime in itself, so of course crime would go down if they were not here!

(takes off hat)

That is the argument I've heard before.

Posted by: Jordan G | April 29, 2010 2:37 PM

I think it's "stereotyping the cook" in Arizona's case.

Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2010 2:42 PM

My arguement is that if you are a European you must jump through a million hoops (figuratively) to immigrate. My cousin (an American citizen) and his Eruopean national wife wanted to immigrate back to the US after living abroad for several years. It took her over a year to deal with the red tape and paperwork.

Why should we simply allow an unmitigated flow of undocumented immigrants? Secure the borders and institute real immigration reform. Let them all in and reduce the legal red tape so illegal immigration and funding of snakeheads and coyotes are not an attractive option.

Posted by: Scott D. | April 29, 2010 2:49 PM

Do other people routinely carry citizenship documentation with them?

Foreigners who are legally in the US generally do because ICE requires it. Nonresident aliens carry their passports with visas (or visa waiver entry forms) in them; resident aliens carry their green cards. Note: this is potentially a problem for foreigners who enter the US from Canada, at least by car, because land border crossings between the US and Canada do not handle entry paperwork the way it would be handled if you fly into the US (for instance, land border crossings with Canada do not issue or collect I-94 forms; I know this because I have crossed the Canadian border by car with passengers who were nonresident aliens legally in the US).

Those of us who are US citizens generally do not carry such documentation except when it may be needed to travel outside the US. As somebody upthread pointed out, people may be assuming incorrectly that a driver license is proof of citizenship. Most if not all states issue drivers licenses to noncitizens who reasonably expect to remain in the US for an extended period of time. In New Hampshire, where I live, you have to prove that you are here legally in order to obtain or renew the license (this does not mean that you are still here legally; many of the illegal immigrants around here are people who overstay their visas), but this is not true of all states.

Posted by: Eric Lund | April 29, 2010 3:05 PM

"if immigrants suddenly disappeared and the country became immigrant-free..."

...we would be paying $6.00 a gallon for milk and making up our own beds at the motel. Mexican and Central American immigrants, lots of them illegal, do 90% of the Truly Shitty Jobs out here in West Texas. Think slaughterhouse workers, or the kid I know who walked 120 miles from Del Rio to San Angelo so he could work twelve hours a day, six days a week babysitting a couple hundred calves at our local dairy. At the age of thirteen.

He doesn't have the time to commit much crime.

Posted by: Coragyps | April 29, 2010 3:15 PM

It's basically a labor pricing issue. Want higher pay, restrict immigration. Want to pay less for labor, open the borders. Supply and Demand folks. Call each other names but there it is. If you're rich, let 'em in. If you're poor, it's keep 'em out. Both sides are looking out for their self interests.

It's why you see strange coalitions on this issue: red-staters and AFL types on the one hand Kennedy, Clinton and Bush, McCain on the other.

Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2010 3:20 PM

Let me say one reason people try to bypass the system of regular immigration at all is because it is so damned hard.

It costs $1,000 in fees -- that's right fees -- for the privilege of filing your paperwork. (My wife and I had to do this when we were married). This assumes you are brave enough to try this without a lawyer. We were not. That was another $3,000 -- and that is the cheap end of the scale.

Couple that with the push factors -- the reasons peopll want to leave (some of which are, BTW, a direct result of policies here) and what will happen? People who haven't got any money will try to bypass the system.

I should also say many folks do this who are from Canada when they plan to stay here for shorter periods. They are technically violating their visa terms as well, as are the hundreds of Brits, Irishmen and other peopel form Europe working in NYCs restaurants and bars.

And how does one suspect that a person is here illegally anyway? Telepathy? Is there some way an undocumented person "looks?"

What if instead of prosecuting (and persecuting) the immigrant, we had laws in place that says "you have workplace protections no matter what. If you blow the whistle on your employer, you will not be jailed (currently the "processing" of people for deportation has resulted in thousands being held in a New Jersey correctional facility while they wait).

Oh yeah, why not make the visas a wee bit cheaper? If it was $30 I doubt you'd see so many people bypassing the process.

And I asked this elsewhere and would hope someone could answer from a legal perspective: this law seems on its face to violate the comity clause that says I am treated as a non-alien when I move from state to state. ALmost by definition this law would unfairly burden anyone moving in from out of state as a DL isn't proof of citizenship and they'd have to carry around their passports or birth certificates or something. (Art. IV Sec. 2).

But someone tell me if this might be challenged in that way. IANAL.

Posted by: Jesse | April 29, 2010 3:28 PM

I met many people who had come to the US to work for a season or a couple years before returning to Mexico or Central America. As the border has become militarized (since the 1980s and 1990s) they are more likely to stay in the US rather than risk not being able to return. I'm not sure that even a large, machine-gun fortified wall entirely separating the US from Mexico will keep out all or even most immigrants -- many enter legally with a tourist visa via plane or bus, others from other points of entry or through underground tunnels, etc. I think even the politicians who support tougher immigration policies know that the US economy needs these workers (unless they, the politicians, are truly stupid or ignorant). Even when California was in the midst of a recession in the early 1990s and about to pass Proposition 187 (I think), a group of agricultural producers published a full page ad in a newspaper in San Jose begging for more illegal immigrants because the fruit harvest (strawberrys?) was going to rot in the fields.

Posted by: Greg | April 29, 2010 3:37 PM

@6: Actually, I find that grief pushes my idiot asshole grouping tendencies in different directions. If it was a man driving drunk, I want to kill all men. Unless he's short. If that's the case, I want to kill all short people, regardless of gender, race or immigration status. Mind you, if he has bad hair, then all the badhairs gotta go.

I'm always surprised when people go for immigration status when there are so many other variables to consider. The obvious ones are just so... common. But at least we can both agree that drunks who drive should never be the group we want to wreak our vengeance upon.

Posted by: pough | April 29, 2010 3:46 PM

We do NOT need cheap labor agriculture workers. This is a myth. Repeat: we do not need more cheap labor. Even Cesar Chavez stood up this. Wages are down indicating there is no shortage. We could invest in mechanical agriculture. It worked in 1800s. Ag lobby is quite powerful and does not want to compete fairly. This is why NAFTA is loaded with ag protectionism and why we dont fine people for hiring illegals. We will not starve if Americans make a living wage driving lettuce picking machines. You'll get your Argula at whole foods. May cost a nickel more.

Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2010 3:47 PM

Well you didn't take into account the 460,000 felonies of illegal entry, etc. Well this law seems to be a unsophisticated way of handling the problem, there is still a problem. 460K is the population of a large city and if as everyone is saying they come here for jobs that is an awful lot of jobs not going to people who are here legally (citizens or otherwise) and that can't be ignored. Never mind the expenditure of resources maintaining such a population. I recognize this is an unpopular argument to make here, but it does need to be said.

Posted by: Watt | April 29, 2010 3:52 PM

How do citizens prove that they are citizens?

I guessing these nuts think that a driver's license is proof of citizenship

They probably do. But the U.S. Border Guard on Detroit's Ambassador Bridge made it very clear to me a couple years back that it wasn't, and berated me for not having a passport. (And when I said, "But I thought that law didn't go into effect for another 6 months," he said, "It doesn't, but you should be obeying it anyway," demonstrating once again that it's awful hard to find a cop who's not an a**hole).

Posted by: James Hanley | April 29, 2010 3:54 PM

The very act of crossing the border ILLEGALLY is a CRIME. Thus, any "undocumented" immigrant is, by default, a criminal.

No. Nearly half of illegal aliens overstay visas. That means they entered legally and remained unlawfully. To be unlawfully present in the U.S. is a civil infraction, and not a crime.

Arizona excepted, of course.

Posted by: DaveL | April 29, 2010 3:55 PM

I agree with Scott G. I also support a Consitutional Amendment that ties American citizenship to Blood and Soil.

As for agricultural labor issue (i.e., no American wants to do field labor) why we just need to look back to our proud heritage-our ancestors solved that problem handily as well! Maybe we could require them darn welfare recipients to work for Agribusiness Interests-maybe the labor could be forwarded to Purdue Farms through some sort of, I don't know, auction system or something.

And, we should certainly institute some sort of racial homelands system so that our Brave Men In Blue can more easily patrol, locate, and identify miscreants who...lack papers. If all the Mexicans, citizen and not, were confined to a few neighborhoods, policing costs would plummet! I understand there are a few Afrikaners who are sorta feeling lost right now...they would be happy to teach us their system, I'm sure.

Maybe we can start following Europe's bureaucratic rules on other things, too!

Posted by: Brian M | April 29, 2010 3:56 PM

i work in a fed PD office in El Paso. we have some undocumented people here....
my office handles thousands of illegal REentry prosecutions (this is the felony version) every year. in the 12 years i've been here, i have seen exactly....ZERO....prosecutions of employers for hiring undoc'd folk. Would employer sanctions be effective? look at the stats on how illegal immigration tanked during the recent recession...vast numbers of people were going back south. we even got cases where the guy was stopped by BP trying to go home, so we spend taxpayer $ to lock em up ($25K/yr just for prison costs)to teach em to do what they were already trying to do.
???!!!

Posted by: payaso de la mar | April 29, 2010 4:23 PM

Here's my only experience about possibly illegal immigration (it's never been an issue in any field I've worked in):

My younger brother complained viciously about the "Brazilians" taking his job at a restaurant. "Of course they're taking your job! It's called a work ethic! They show up early, stay late, and work hard the whole time, then duh they get the job and your slacking ass doesn't."

Posted by: JustaTech | April 29, 2010 4:32 PM

Maybe we can start following Europe's bureaucratic rules on other things, too!

Ironically one of the benefits of EU membership is that citizens of any member state are more or less free to live and work in any other member state.

Posted by: Matty | April 29, 2010 4:34 PM

Though a single young guy in cheap town probably could, my point is real wages have gone down for low paid working joes. Did you not get that?
I'll spell it out : there is no labor shortage.

Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2010 4:35 PM

Patrick: Thank you for the stats. That's about $375/week, and most folks like to have their rent/mortgage paid within the first week or so of the month. What kind of apartment, in what kind of neighborhood, can one find for $375 - $400/mo.? That's less than the cheesebox that I called my first place 10 years ago.

Posted by: jws | April 29, 2010 4:39 PM

Walt, #48: 460K is the population of a large city and if as everyone is saying they come here for jobs that is an awful lot of jobs not going to people who are here legally (citizens or otherwise) and that can't be ignored.

Except that they are putting 460K or so other people to work supplying them with food, clothing, electricity, and what ever else this type of over simplistic economic analysis requires.

Unless they are a closed, self-contained community. In that case, the jobs they are doing wouldn't even exist if they weren't here.

Posted by: Chiroptera | April 29, 2010 4:45 PM

jws: I certainly don't know of any. My younger brother lived in (what I though was) a hole-in-the-wall for about a year, and he was paying $600 a month. That's the cheapest I've heard of (in my area, at least) for a person living by himself.

I know a couple of people who lived in small-ish two bedroom apartments with roommates with rents of about $900 a month. Split between two people, that's close at least. My first place was $375 a month (after splitting with two roommates) and that was only five years ago. They aren't pretty, and they're usually at least thirty or forty year old buildings, but they exist.

I can't imagine living on $18k per year, but about one in six US households do so.

Posted by: Patrick | April 29, 2010 4:51 PM

Patrick: $375 after splitting with two other folks? Goddam illegals always packing as many as they can into a house or apartment.....

(heavy sarcasm here)

Posted by: jws | April 29, 2010 4:56 PM

@asdf

You want to know why the wages for these jobs have gone down? You said it yourself, they're no longer union. Employers have driven the wages down by finding people that will work for very low wages: illegal immigrants. Hell, sometimes legal immigrants who will take any job to get a foot in the door. The illegals can't protest their wages or treatment, so the wages stay low. Americans won't take the jobs because they are low paid and hard work. That's why you see things like Greg said in #42, farmers don't find many Americans looking for that kind of job.

So who is to blame? Politicians, racists and businesses. Businesses and politicians use the racists to keep wages down and limit the number of immigrants.

As for your glib suggestion in #46 that we "invest in mechanical agriculture. It worked in 1800s.", they keep trying to make machines that can do this labor, but as yet there are no good machines for much fruit picking and other currently labor intensive farm labor and other labor currently done by illegals.

And as for "Ag lobby is quite powerful and does not want to compete fairly". Who do they not want to compete with? How would not using machines, which would theoretically be much cheaper, be in their interest?

Posted by: lynxreign | April 29, 2010 4:59 PM

"no good machines for much fruit pick". not true.

Then show me a link to machines that pick strawberries, apples, etc...

And you haven't addressed why "Ag" wouldn't want machines to do this labor?

I would love for all workers in this country to get a living wage. However, it is nowhere near as simple as you seem to think.

Want labor? pay the market rate. Cant' afford the workers? Too bad.

And currently they DO pay the "market rate". That's what the presence of illegal immigrants are doing, driving down the market rate.

People will adjust to the supply and the demand for goods and services. No one's going to die

Wishful thinking. That seems to be all you've got.
When the unemployment rate was 4%, there were more illegal immigrants working in this country than there were unemployed Americans.

Personally, I'd prefer to see much easier legal immegration.

Posted by: lynxriegn | April 29, 2010 5:16 PM

google apple picking machine

I'd like to see easier immigration,too. No doubt the lawyer tax is too high. A more moderate, non-employer sponsored visa system would be good too. A lower quota might be nice. Not on the rich man's agenda, though.

Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2010 5:21 PM

@asdf

Try oranges, strawberries and others. Machines are experimental at best. Most fruit picking machines don't seem to be very efficient. Even the apple ones don't seem to be great. Machines are a red herring.

Posted by: Lynxreign | April 29, 2010 5:38 PM

It bothers me that nobody has mentioned Maquilladoras. I was born in Latin America, and the Americanization of our economies changes our culture more than immigration. It is one think to have immigrants work at the restaurants where we order our food, another when foreign companies take over your country and dictate the type of government you ought to have in your own land. The second is the case on most of Latin America. So if we want to get tough on immigration then fine, but let’s be honest and stop meddling on the politics and economic affairs of other countries.

Posted by: walter | April 29, 2010 5:48 PM

Here is my idea: allow any Mexican who the Mexican government will issue a passport to to enter into the United States on the same terms as Canadians can enter. You will never outsmart millions of determined people especially when there are many tens of billions of dollars at stake for people on both sides of the border.

Then we can start taking care of the real causes of the problem. If the issue is them competing for jobs, then it seems fairly simple: actually enforce the law on employers with penalties harsh enough to make it not worth a violation. A store is not going to jump a fence. Neither is a construction site. The moment employers don't think it in their interest to hire illegals (whether out of direct knowledge or choosing not to know) the flow of illegals crossing the border will slow to a small trickle. Heck, it would probably make it harder on those who smuggle various things either to evade taxes or prohibition. (Whether those things should be illegal is another issue not important here.)

But I strongly suspect that commercial interests will be able to keep law enforcement and/or the actual penalties to a minimum. And if by chance they can't, they will push through so many exceptions through Congress that they will be able to hire all the Mexicans they want anyways. But at least the human smuggling, dangers of rough terrain, to fear of reporting crimes to the police, and the ability of employers saying work in bad conditions or we will rat you the border patrol will mostly come to an end. What is more the flow of workers will conducted in the light of day. (Some kind of tax or fee might be a good way to test any claim that a waiver is needed because no American will do the job.)

As for amnesty, I say no charges whatsoever for prior illegal entry but give no preference to those who broke the misguided laws. Immigration should done in the exact same terms as they would be done for Canada or some other Western country.

And oh yes, maybe we need to consider that Mexico needs some serious development.

Posted by: Childermass | April 29, 2010 5:52 PM

sigh . i tried.

Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2010 5:54 PM

jws,

What kind of apartment, in what kind of neighborhood, can one find for $375 - $400/mo.?

In my pleasant, safe neighborhood, we have a number of decent 2- to 4-bedroom homes (certainly I'd be willing to live in any of them) shared by housemates (mostly either college students or Mexican workers) where each person is probably paying that or less. Mostly nice people, and good neighbors. I myself am planning to rent out a property I own (4-bedroom, 3 and 1/2 bath older home in very good condition, large brick fireplace, utility room, separate dining room and family room, very large garage, nicely landscaped half-acre yard) for $900. So I guess it depends on where you live, and whether you're willing to share.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 29, 2010 6:23 PM

jws,

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I see no connection between your vague reference to a stereotype about overcrowding that apparently exists somewhere or other, and my factual response to your factual question about rental costs. To the best of my knowledge, overcrowding isn't a problem in any of these local cases, as it's against the law here to rent a home or apartment to more than 3 unrelated persons.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 29, 2010 6:32 PM

Richard @ 19: Do other people routinely carry citizenship documentation with them?

Depends where you are. In actual border towns it is actually relatively common for people to carry around citizenship documents. (Although typically passports or green cards as opposed to birth certificates). Both for the reason that people who live right on the border tend to cross the border more often, and for the reason that that's where encounters with immigration officials tend to be most common.

Posted by: Ben P | April 29, 2010 6:41 PM

Arizona claims that the violence and crime is due to illegal aliens. I would instead suggest that the violence and crime is due to illegal *drugs*, and the people who traffic them. As the original post notes, most illegal aliens are here to work and earn American dollars, not to cause trouble.

Posted by: Scott | April 29, 2010 7:24 PM

JuliaL "To the best of my knowledge, overcrowding isn't a problem in any of these local cases, as it's against the law here to rent a home or apartment to more than 3 unrelated persons."
Come and knock on our door.....
We've been waiting for you......
Where the kisses are hers and hers and his,
Three's company too.

Come and dance on on our floor......
Take a step that is new.....
We've a loveable space that needs your face,
Three's company too.

You'll see that life is a frolic and laughter is calling for you......
Down at our rendez-vous,
Three's company, too!!!!!!

(I can't be the only one thinking it)

Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 29, 2010 7:33 PM

Watt, #93: Moreover, your argument is saying that if you don't have the time/money, etc. to do what you want legally, then doing it illegally is acceptable - which it is not.

Well, I disagree with this as a general principle. I was raised during a time when we were taught that one is under no obligation to obey an unjust law, and that it is acceptable to find other ways around unreasonable restrictions. Now, one may argue that our current immigration laws are just and that the restrictions on acquiring residency are reasonable, but that is a different argument than saying one must obey the law just because it is the law.

I would say that deciding to break a law should not be done lightly; there are the consequences if you are caught, of course, but also when a law has been passed through the democratic process and/or is supported by most of society, then you have an obligation to very carefully consider whether you is certain that you are in the right.

Of course, real life circumstances may be so desperate that you might feel that you have very little choice in the matter. That is another possibility.

Posted by: Chiroptera | April 29, 2010 8:15 PM

geez duwayne, who's the hysterical jack?

Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2010 8:31 PM

A legal (former) long-term resident's perspective on the impossibility of proving you're present legally most of the time you're stuck in the immigration vortex:

"Just remember that when you read about Arizona's latest laws. It will be tougher on legal foreign residents than people who buy good fake papers."

Posted by: usagi | April 29, 2010 9:15 PM

It is absolutely abhorrent, this notion of requiring anyone to show fucking cops proof they are U.S. American citizens or legal aliens.

folks have noted that green card holders are legally required to carry their green cards at all times. long have been. it's a misdemeanor not to, in fact. (i always did, even though i was never asked for it except at job interviews.)

not sure i'd call it "abhorrent" to require everybody to carry their papers at all times; "french" or "japanese", maybe. it's not gonna stand for long in the USA unless the enforcement turns out to be remarkably selective, though, i'd bet.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 29, 2010 9:55 PM

Nomen -

Green cards and visas are not what I have a big objection to (though I am not all that keen on the green card requirement). The problem is that the law is not terribly specific. It requires that anyone who is asked for proof of their legal right to be here to provide such proof on the spot or go to jail.

Posted by: DuWayne | April 29, 2010 11:03 PM

Hmm. I can't see how my feelings about losing a loved one would depend on the perpetrator's immigration status. But maybe I'm funny that way.

No, you don't get it. Uke is saying that it's perfectly fine for nice white people to drive recklessly and shoot your father. Being brown is a far worse crime than actually killing somebody.

FWIW, I'm much more worried about getting hit by a drunken frat boy who is a natural-born citizen and is an entitled, selfish asshole. I'm also a little worried about getting hit by soccer moms in SUVs because they are too distracted by screaming kids and ringing cell phones to see a stop sign. I'm much more likely to get hit and killed by a natural-born citizen, but apparently it's ok when they kill me because they haven't committed the crime of being born in a different country.

Posted by: catgirl | April 29, 2010 11:25 PM

let's see how you feel about your poor little abused illegal aliens when one of them plows into your daughter's car while driving drunk as a skunk. Or when one of them shoots your father at a convenience store to steal cigarettes.

Are you saying those things would be okay if the person involved had been born here?

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 30, 2010 12:57 AM

Well here in Indiana they have made it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get drivers licences which makes it harder for them to get insurance.

This genius move increases the chances that you will get hit by an uninsured driver.

The illegal immigrants I know have bogus drivers licences and drive like drivers education instructors in fear of being pulled over. If they are caught driving they are issued tickets that are misdemeanors punishable by jail time.

This is setting up a dangerous situation where more and more people are driving unlicensed and uninsured.

Posted by: Lance | April 30, 2010 1:39 AM

LOL @ #2 Captain Mike.

Arizona should buy a B2 stealth bomber with an anti-immigration logo plastered on the wings, just like Springfield. That'll show dem immigants!

Posted by: AL | April 30, 2010 3:46 AM

The late great Enzo Pinza - Italian Citizen - World renowned bass-baritone and in his prime matinee idol of sorts and pride of Metropolitan Opera of NYC and other USA venues had the misfortune of making a trip to see Niagara Falls on the Canadian side over 60 years ago and could not get back into the USA because he did not have his papers. He was well respected and well known. His home in USA; his contributions to the Nation applauded; his face and voice easily recognizable by many; his residency LEGAL. Yet this good man had a devil of a time returning.

My point: the USA guards then overplayed the danger and their power. They embarrassed a good person and our Nation's perceived reasonable hospitality. Maybe they had something against Italians (WWII era)? but maybe it was just because they could. Mr. Pinza should not have had a big problem yet he did. So some poor bloke - not really white - even innocent - in AZ - scared - ordinary - may not have tons more problems?? No?!? GET REAL!!

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 30, 2010 5:55 AM

All of the cretinous idiots on this thread are right. Pure, white Americans need more lebensraum. We can't be having those dirty wetbacks coming in shooting the place up whilst screaming about Mehico and cinco de mayo, now can we?

Posted by: Coryat | April 30, 2010 5:58 AM

ConcernedJoe it's *Ezio* Pinza

Posted by: Bob Carroll | April 30, 2010 8:31 AM

Re: rental prices, I live in Tucson (yay me! :| ) and you can easily find a place for under $400 per person here if you look a little. My girlfriend and I just put in an application on a 1000sqft, 2-bedroom duplex in a pretty nice neighborhood, within biking distance of the University of Arizona (where I'm a student), and we'll be paying $670 a month plus gas/electric. So if I were living with a roommate I would be paying $335 for my bedroom. Combined, my girlfriend and I make a hair under $2K a month (she gets assistance from her parents and I work for $9.50 an hour doing tech support at the University), and we live relatively comfortably, if frugally, with a dog and two cats. We can afford decent food, we both have health insurance through school, we each have a car, etc. I'm not going to pretend we are putting a lot of money in savings or anything at the moment, but since most people go into debt while they're in school I'd say we're doing OK.

Posted by: Uncephalized | April 30, 2010 12:16 PM

An analogy: Fred and Sally want to walk through a door. Tom is standing at the door, and says that before they can come through, they have to let Tom punch them in the gut. Fred mans up and takes the punch; Sally sneaks in through a window, instead. To argue that illegals need to leave the country and come back in through the legal process is tantamount to saying that Sally should step outside and get punched in the gut, because that's 'only fair' to Fred.

I think the real problem is that some people see not making that argument as implying Tom should apologise for punching people and Tom doesn't want to do that. It's his door, he got it by kneeing the last guy in the balls, and he has a moral right to control who goes through.

Hey this analogy could run and run.

Posted by: Matty | April 30, 2010 12:48 PM

Watt,

Of course if this house party were in Arizona at the time, in addition to sending you out of the party, they would also have grabbed half a dozen people who match your ethnic/racial identity and threw them out as well despite the fact that they had invitations, or perhaps were related to the family and lived there.

The fact of the matter is, your analogy breaks down because this law goes well beyond simple enforcement of immigration laws (or access to property rights). Also, our history as a country plays a major role in this issue because we have a long, LONG, history of mistreating people who don't reflect the stereotypical majority persona. 150 years ago my ancestors, despite the fact that they and their ancestors had been born in this country for centuries prior to the country's existence, weren't citizens. At that same time African Americans were being denied their rights because the dominant local culture didn't like "uppity" minorities. We, as a country, tried to keep Wong Kim Ark out despite the fact that he was a native born American citizen visiting his family in China and didn't happen to look European.

We, as a nation, have a long history of screwing over minorities, immigrants, racial groups, women ... the list goes on and on. This law in Arizona establishes utterly ridiculous guidelines for criteria for harassing people to determine whether they are legally present in the country or not. What makes this already asinine provision even worse is that the most bigoted racist in the state gets to file suit against law enforcement agencies if they don't feel that the already dangerously racist law isn't being racist enough. Add to that the idiocy that the state decided it would go ahead and process, hold trials, and lockup violators when, previously, we could simply turn them over to border patrol and let the federal government pay for it.

The law is stupid, racist, and poorly considered. The only aspects of the law that make any sense are those that penalize businesses for hiring illegal workers. Of course I noticed that your party analogy didn't involve someone illegally being part of the wait-staff serving the party and the butler being fired for wrongly bringing them in. Nope, only penalties for those who might look "illegal" no penalties for those who knowingly hire undocumented workers or encourage them to come into the country...

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 30, 2010 8:00 PM

And what happens when the AZ cops arrest some brown-skinned person and deport them, back to the country they fled from in order to avoid persecution, arrest or even execution?
Didn't the US sign the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees?
What steps is an AZ cop going to undertake to check the refugee-status of a detainee, I wonder? - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | April 30, 2010 9:34 PM

Uke - Any citations?
Some questions for you to try and answer.
How many illegal aliens per hundred thousand commit crimes compared to others in the general population? How many illegal aliens per hundred thousand commit crimes compared to those in the general population who are in similar circumstances? What are the economic costs and benefits of immigrants (differentiated into legal and illegal categories)?
Can you define 'nativist'? In what conditions does 'nativism' flourish? When does it diminish? At what times in the past has it appeared and disappeared? What are the costs and benefits of 'nativism'? - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | May 1, 2010 12:35 AM

Uke is a typical conservatard. Doesn't know how to construct a cogent argument, but sure knows how to be angry and reactionary as fuck. Because when you're that angry, you just have to be right.

Posted by: AL | May 1, 2010 2:09 AM

Watt: You didn't take your re-structuring quite far enough--you forgot the part where you only had the house because your grandparents raped and killed the former occupants, you only had all the money to buy the gifts because your parents kidnapped the neighbor's kids for ransom back in the day, and only had the food because you conned the very "uninvited guests" into harvesting from your garden before throwing the party.

Note: I'm not saying the U.S. should NOT regulate its borders. There are very good, pragmatic and utilitarian reasons for doing so. But claiming it's about "justice" rather than pragmatism makes it a moral struggle, which invariably ends up distorting the issue. I don't support a limited amnesty and a more open immigration policy because of some nebulous concept of what's "just"; I support them because I feel that such a policy produces the best result in the long term, for the country as a whole and for our citizenry.

Posted by: Freemage | May 1, 2010 4:36 AM

Yep, 70% of the people in this state are "conservatards". Good assessment there, Skippy.

I know it's difficult for you, but here's a cogent argument: THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. They are by definition, criminals. They have invaded our country (to the tune of over 460,000 in AZ alone). They should not be here outside of a guest worker program.

We, the actual Citizens of the state, are dealing with the problem now, since the federal government has done nothing. And now you're all screaming like stuck pigs.

Well, that's a democratic republic for you. Don't like it? keep working to change it to something more to your liking. If you all can get enough votes to, say compel all of us to adopt a random illegal alien, then we'll see different kinds of posts on the liberal blogs. Until then, the people have spoken And they're fed up. Deal with it.

Posted by: ukd | May 1, 2010 9:49 AM

"We, the actual Citizens of the state, are dealing with the problem now, since the federal government has done nothing. And now you're all screaming like stuck pigs. "

Probably not the best terminology to use. People already think of you guys as a bunch of deliverance-style morons after this move. After that pig comment, I'm just imagining you playing a banjo, or saying 'I bet you can squeal like a pig! WEEEEE!'

Posted by: Coryat | May 1, 2010 10:58 AM

Yep, 70% of the people in this state are "conservatards". Good assessment there, Skippy.

Argumentum ad popolarum.

I know it's difficult for you, but here's a cogent argument: THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. They are by definition, criminals.

Circular reasoning, and erroneous reasoning at that. Look up the distinction between civil infractions and criminal infractions.

And guess what? We passed a law. Deal with it.

Nope. But I might suggest that you take your own advice concerning feeling "fed up," 'cuz your unconstitutional law is nigh for reversal.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 1, 2010 11:20 AM

The real flaw in the logic here is that some folks believe that the violence and illegal activity is due to undocumented workers. In reality, violent crime is down in Arizona but the media and the hard-liners in AZ make sure that if an undocumented worker is involved, it's big news, but the facts are that violent crime has slowed in the last few years in AZ. The law passed isn't going to stop the real problem which are drug runners and smugglers, It isn't even going to slow them down.

There was a great article in the LA Times featuring an interview with an ex-Phoenix cop who had to deal with these issues. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/immigration/la-me-0502-lopezcolumn-20100502%2C0%2C2732982.column)

And he said it very plainly after a white cop was killed: "I told people that it's not whites or Hispanics who killed Marc," he said back then. "It's drug-dealing cop killers. The issue isn't ethnicity — it's crime and drugs."

And this is the real problem with this law is that it doesn't address the real issue, at all.

Posted by: Hey You! | May 3, 2010 10:30 PM

RagingBee, as previously stated, being in the country illegally is a civil offense, not a criminal one, so your argument is an abject failure.

Posted by: Scott | May 4, 2010 1:25 AM