Undocumented immigration in border states

[devilsadvocate]

Show me where you are required by law to carry state ID.

Permanent residents - immigrants granted residency, but not yet entitled to or not yet granted full citizenship - have to carry their residency card at all times, not their passport.

Whatever identification one chooses to carry, it should be sufficient to satisfy the gendarmes if one comes to their attention.

I can assure you that if I were detained (for whatever reason), and failed to produce identification, I would expect to be in legal custody until such time as I produce proper identification.

On what basis should anyone have a different expectation?

Skiz posted that it is mandatory by law to carry state ID, I'd like him to show me that law. The possibilities of detention if you are suspected of having broken the law and you have no ID are irrelevant to my request.

Perhaps I should ask you this:

Why (not just your opinion) is the federal statute not being enforced on our southern border?


Have you discussed this in your graduate classes, and if not, why not?
What are you talking about?

It's relevance to the issue at hand is inarguable...

There are more border guards now than there has ever been, so what federal statute (not just your opinion ) is not being enforced. Not enforced and insufficiently enforced for your liking are two different things.

[devilsadvocate]

@J2K4 I did some some quick research after you posted an opinion piece (opinion pieces tend to be high on opinion and low on factual substance)

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu...-organizations

August 31, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

So here's a few questions.

Do you think the first amendment is misguided?

Should commentators like Glenn Beck be liable for all these nut cases that are killing cops?

Should the NRA be held responsible for murders committed with legally held guns?

I value the freedoms protected by the constitution.

Back to the thread topic, which side do you fall on with this 14th amendment rhetoric

[j2k4]

Please stick to the topic at hand, J2...

You brought up the ACLU, not me.

Let's get down to it then:

You believe the law to be directed at Mexicans, and formulated thus to their detriment alone; you claim that the bulk of public opinion (plus the ACLU and the NYT) coincides.

I believe the law is generic, and no durable claim can be made that it is inherently racist in language or intent.

I would also claim that most people (especially, and most importantly, Arizonans) agree with me.

There will be no resolution here; you will not sway me, and I will not sway you.

I will add that no increase in volume or belligerence will change that fact, no matter your belief to the contrary.

You were wrong to counsel 'leet' to escalate his efforts, though I am quite sure you disagree with me on that point, as well.

I have been here a long time; I have engaged in this type of debate for decades, and I can count the minds I have changed on one finger.

We do what we are doing for the gallery, in hope of backstopping our cause.

That is a fact.

[megabyteme]

Please stick to the topic at hand, J2...

You brought up the ACLU, not me.

Let's get down to it then:

Spoiler: Show

You believe the law to be directed at Mexicans, and formulated thus to their detriment alone; you claim that the bulk of public opinion (plus the ACLU and the NYT) coincides.

I believe the law is generic, and no durable claim can be made that it is inherently racist in language or intent.

I would also claim that most people (especially, and most importantly, Arizonans) agree with me.

There will be no resolution here; you will not sway me, and I will not sway you.

I will add that no increase in volume or belligerence will change that fact, no matter your belief to the contrary.

You were wrong to counsel 'leet' to escalate his efforts, though I am quite sure you disagree with me on that point, as well.

I have been here a long time; I have engaged in this type of debate for decades, and I can count the minds I have changed on one finger.

We do what we are doing for the gallery, in hope of backstopping our cause.

That is a fact.

Spoiler: Show

I have no grudge with you, Good, Sir Knight.

Isn't it unfortunate, though, that we (humans) lack the power to truly sway others? My wife and I are a single class and a thesis away from our Masters (in Communication, BTW) and there is seldom anything truly gained, it seems, through dialog. Sure, there are hopes, but as you stated, it rarely happens.

My recent attempt to "have the gloves taken off" was a bit of an experiment. It followed NONE of the "rules" of ethical communication, but I wanted to see if raw, unrestrained emotion could have a swaying effect- or, it could have just been kinda fun to "let it all air out".

You earned my respect far before this thread, Kev, and you will have it long after this law is forgotten.

[Skiz]

*EDIT* So, if a radio station called and offered you $1 Million to answer this question : "Who is the sole target of the new Arizona Immigration Law?" You would NOT be able to answer "Latinos". How about if they gave you a second shot, and read you the article from The New York Times (above)? Still unable to answer, skiz?

Your insinuating that I don't see the giant Hispanic elephant in the room. Trust me, I see it; it's just irrelevant.

Now, if you asked what spurred the need for legislation, or which border was being inundated with emigrants, I'd tell you it was the mass illegal emigration of people, which an overwhelming number of are Hispanics. That isn't racist, that's just a fact. AZ didn't pass legislation to deter Hispanics from emigrating, they passed legislation to keep illegals from emigrating.

Looking at your IP addy, I see you live far, far, away from what is to me a short afternoon drive - Mexico. Those of us in the border states have no problem with Mexicans or anyone else South of the border. Mexican culture is a big part of our State and always has been. Heck, my girlfriend is a US citizen, born in El Salvador. All that being said, we both have a major beef with illegal emigrants coming here and receiving a "free ride". So let me make this real clear: No one gives a shit where they came from, it's how they came.

[j2k4]

@J2K4 I did some some quick research after you posted an opinion piece (opinion pieces tend to be high on opinion and low on factual substance)

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu...-organizations

August 31, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

So here's a few questions.

Do you think the first amendment is misguided?

Should commentators like Glenn Beck be liable for all these nut cases that are killing cops?

Should the NRA be held responsible for murders committed with legally held guns?

I value the freedoms protected by the constitution.

Back to the thread topic, which side do you fall on with this 14th amendment rhetoric

I see no need for the "anchor baby" language, and I think it should be deleted.

The rest of your questions are off-topic.

[j2k4]

You brought up the ACLU, not me.

Let's get down to it then:

Spoiler: Show

You believe the law to be directed at Mexicans, and formulated thus to their detriment alone; you claim that the bulk of public opinion (plus the ACLU and the NYT) coincides.

I believe the law is generic, and no durable claim can be made that it is inherently racist in language or intent.

I would also claim that most people (especially, and most importantly, Arizonans) agree with me.

There will be no resolution here; you will not sway me, and I will not sway you.

I will add that no increase in volume or belligerence will change that fact, no matter your belief to the contrary.

You were wrong to counsel 'leet' to escalate his efforts, though I am quite sure you disagree with me on that point, as well.

I have been here a long time; I have engaged in this type of debate for decades, and I can count the minds I have changed on one finger.

We do what we are doing for the gallery, in hope of backstopping our cause.

That is a fact.

Spoiler: Show

I have no grudge with you, Good, Sir Knight.

Isn't it unfortunate, though, that we (humans) lack the power to truly sway others? My wife and I are a single class and a thesis away from our Masters (in Communication, BTW) and there is seldom anything truly gained, it seems, through dialog. Sure, there are hopes, but as you stated, it rarely happens.

My recent attempt to "have the gloves taken off" was a bit of an experiment. It followed NONE of the "rules" of ethical communication, but I wanted to see if raw, unrestrained emotion could have a swaying effect- or, it could have just been kinda fun to "let it all air out".

You earned my respect far before this thread, Kev, and you will have it long after this law is forgotten.

I am relieved to hear it was an 'experiment'.

I thought you'd gone off your nut.

If anyone ever figures out how to deliver a 'cyber-punch', however, we may have to re-assess.

[j2k4]

Your insinuating that I don't see the giant Hispanic elephant in the room. Trust me, I see it; it's just irrelevant.

This ^...

No one gives a shit where they came from, it's how they came.

...and this ^.

[megabyteme]

*EDIT* So, if a radio station called and offered you $1 Million to answer this question : "Who is the sole target of the new Arizona Immigration Law?" You would NOT be able to answer "Latinos". How about if they gave you a second shot, and read you the article from The New York Times (above)? Still unable to answer, skiz?

Your insinuating that I don't see the giant Hispanic elephant in the room. Trust me, I see it; it's just irrelevant.

Now, if you asked what spurred the need for legislation, or which border was being inundated with emigrants, I'd tell you it was the mass illegal emigration of people, which an overwhelming number of are Hispanics. That isn't racist, that's just a fact. AZ didn't pass legislation to deter Hispanics from emigrating, they passed legislation to keep illegals from emigrating.

Looking at your IP addy, I see you live far, far, away from what is to me a short afternoon drive - Mexico. Those of us in the border states have no problem with Mexicans or anyone else South of the border. Mexican culture is a big part of our State and always has been. Heck, my girlfriend is a US citizen, born in El Salvador. All that being said, we both have a major beef with illegal emigrants coming here and receiving a "free ride". So let me make this real clear: No one gives a shit where they came from, it's how they came.

And I, thank you for that, too. Ofc, it IS an issue with illegal immigrants (im= to enter; em=to exit a country). I voiced my sympathy for illegals in the last thread (war zone?) because of what the US's corn subsidies have done to the Mexican farmer AND the country's economy. If more people knew the truth, we would call them refugees and give them aid.

I live in eastern Washington. Our immigrant population comes seasonally with migrant workers and, just to the west (central Washington) we have a stable, growing population. There are no gang problems, no HUGE anything- to my knowledge.

I have a problem with this particular law because it creates a very un-American environment for anyone who, legal or otherwise, looks Latino. I meant to post a link, but I found an article stating that this law has significantly reduced the number of LEGAL Mexicans from crossing the border into Arizona. It is now known as a place that is unfriendly to Latinos. I don't imagine your girlfriend would be too excited about a trip to Ariz anytime too soon. And that REALLY sucks that we face that kind of trade-off. True violation of civil liberties, or illegal immigrants and the problems associated with them.

If you were born poor, and in Mexico, what would you do for your family? I know I would be doing exactly what the illegals are doing. Again, they get my sympathy.

Back to corn subsidies... we sell American produced corn for less than the cost of production in Mexico. We have flooded their markets, and seriously screwed anyone (LOTS) involved in Mexican agriculture. They live on corn. We screwed them. We can't continue to screw our neighbor AND not expect starving people to just lay down and die.

The answer to this, is not through arresting Latinos on border states through this law. They'll keep coming back- they have to. Does anyone think they want to "commute", leave their families, and their native country for a place where they are abused by the corporations that led to their failed agriculture in Mexico?

There is a need to do something. This law is NOT the way to solve the problem. Fair trade is a good first step.

[megabyteme]

1) I am relieved to hear it was an 'experiment'.

2) I thought you'd gone off your nut.

3) If anyone ever figures out how to deliver a 'cyber-punch', however, we may have to re-assess.

1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive.

3... I am almost certain that chalice is spending his free time developing one.