[DrTacoMD]

Before this topic takes over The Complete Annihilation of American Liberty thread, here's a new thread.

For those of you unfamiliar with the topic, the state of Arizona recently passed a new law obligating local police to identify individuals they suspect to be illegal immigrants, and authorizes them to discern the suspect's residency status. No suspicion of other crimes is needed.

The two schools of thought: those in favor of this bill believe it will help eliminate illegal immigrants from the state -- some estimates put the number of illegals in AZ at 450,000 -- and will deter others from entering. Those who oppose it (I'm in this camp) believe that it essentially legalizes racial profiling, as there is virtually no immediately apparent difference between a legal Mexican immigrant and an illegal one.

Discuss.

[turtle777]

If the US wasn't that stupid about their perceived loss of liberties, they would make it universally required for EVERYONE to carry around government issued photo IDs.

You only need laws like this if your existing laws are to weak.

The US should get their national ID card and make it required for everyone to carry it.

End of story. No racial profiling needed.

-t

[Sage]

And I’m in that weird third camp that says Who cares who comes into our country, as long as they’re not known criminals? The laws surrounding immigration and residency are mostly silly (my mother had to go through the process, and I work with many people who are doing the same).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Sage 

And I’m in that weird third camp that says Who cares who comes into our country, as long as they’re not known criminals?

LOL, and how exactly do you keep known criminals out if you don't care ?

How do you even "know" those criminials ?

I think I get your point though: make immigration easy for everyone as long as they are law abiding citizens.
But that's not a solution, because then they become eligible for all those nice free handouts (Social Security, unemployment benefits etc...)

Who is supposed to pay for all that ?

-t

[nonhuman]

Crime has been on the decline in Arizona for decades. Even El Paso, which is right on the border, is a very safe city. Additionally, studies have shown that illegal immigrants are less likely to break the law once they've entered the country. This law serves no practical purpose whatsoever except to legitimize a bunch of assholes' racism.

[BadKosh]

Yeah. we assholes are against lawbreakers who come here and take jobs and drain resources (CA, FLA etc). I guess the non-asshole side is siding with illegals and lawbreakers. Well said.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Yeah. we assholes are against lawbreakers who come here and take jobs and drain resources (CA, FLA etc). I guess the non-asshole side is siding with illegals and lawbreakers. Well said.

This law will do little more than make life (even more) miserable for the many millions of Latinos who are legal residents or US citizens by legitimizing the already horrendously discriminatory behavior that they have to put up with every day simply because they look different.

[nonhuman]

Ignoring, for now, the issue of whether it's really the case that illegal immigrants 'take jobs' and 'drain resources' (at least some of the claims in this regard are absolutely and demonstrably false), the important questions regarding this, and any other, law are a) will it be effective at achieving the stated goals, and b) will it do so without introducing undue burden on the average citizen. I believe the answer to both of these questions to be no, in this case.

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Crime has been on the decline in Arizona for decades. Even El Paso, which is right on the border, is a very safe city.

Pssst... El Paso is in Texas, not Arizona. Were you thinking about Nogales? They're a border city with a lower-than-average (for the state and for the country) crime rate.

[SpaceMonkey]

Intentions aside, this law is an invitation to abuse. On a practical level, it will also discourage illegal immigrants from seeking help from/cooperating with the police, making it harder for the police to do their jobs in that particular community. The priority for the police needs to be their community, and not national immigration laws. There is a reason why we don't have a national police force. Immigration needs to be addressed at the national level.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

Pssst... El Paso is in Texas, not Arizona. Were you thinking about Nogales? They're a border city with a lower-than-average (for the state and for the country) crime rate.

I know El Paso is in Texas. Are you saying that illegal immigration is only a problem in Arizona and that other border towns can't be used as useful case studies to understand the the issues surrounding immigration? El Paso makes a very good example because it is essentially the same city as Juarez, one of the worst cities in Mexico when it comes to drug related crime. Despite that, El Paso is one of the safest cities in America.

How can that fact possibly be irrelevant to this discussion?

[Captain Obvious]

There's no relevant schools of thought.

States cannot thread onto the jurisdiction of federal law enforcement. Arizona state officials are either doing this to force a confrontation with the US Government in an effort to bring on action or are begging for a series of lawsuits they will lose.

That's it.

This is going to get expensive for Arizona and is going to be politically damaging for Obama and McCain. The only possible winner over this is Hayworth because both camps on either side of this issue are not going to get anything out of this circus. The only possibility for real immigration reform was Bush before the Arabs blanketed the nation with a nice film of xenophobia. Without a border state pro business Republican in the Oval Office all of this is just political theater.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Crime has been on the decline in Arizona for decades. Even El Paso, which is right on the border, is a very safe city. Additionally, studies have shown that illegal immigrants are less likely to break the law once they've entered the country. This law serves no practical purpose whatsoever except to legitimize a bunch of assholes' racism.

1) El Paso borders to New Mexico.

2) Safe ? Not at all. The drug cartels from Juarez frequently cross the border and cause quite a bit of crime in El Paso as well.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Despite that, El Paso is one of the safest cities in America.

How can that fact possibly be irrelevant to this discussion?

Fact ? Links, please.

As far as I can tell, your "facts" are not true.

Have a look at this:

El Paso, Texas (TX) New York, New York (NY) Detailed Profiles - travel and real estate info, jobs, hotels, hospitals, weather, schools, crime, ...

In violent and property crimes, El Paso ranks same as NY, NY. Well above the average of the US.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there some percentage of law-abiding (beyond having broken immigration laws) versus criminal wherein this is no longer an important factor in the overall determination of policy?

Aren't there numerous changes in policy which could be effected that would vastly improve that percentage?

Questions for BadKosh from the other thread.

[ebuddy]

Several points here:

- Those who are looking out for the best interests of latinos are understandable and in many respects admirable, but simply overlook the best interests of the country IMO. It's like complaining about the colors of paint you've been given with no canvas to use them on. The fact of the matter is that this country cannot sustain the delivery of its provisions to those who would earn an income, tax free and send it back across the border. Arizona is not taking measures this drastic because it gets off on causing racist rifts of this magnitude or because illegal immigration is good for Arizona. Let's quit kidding ourselves here.

- To say arguments such as "resource drain" and "taking jobs" is demonstrably false is laughable as they are in fact the primary draws into the US. While the illegal immigrant is not intending harm on the American economy, the result of failed immigration policy is staggering; immigrationcounters.com

- The overwhelming majority of data available on illegal immigration shows a net-loss not only on a state-by-state level, but most demonstrably in a nationwide loss in employment, in wages, in social services, and government revenue.

I like how once again we get to endure the word "racist" thrown around by those angry at you for opposing their slave trade.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Several points here:

- Those who are looking out for the best interests of latinos are understandable and in many respects admirable, but simply overlook the best interests of the country IMO. It's like complaining about the colors of paint you've been given with no canvas to use them on. The fact of the matter is that this country cannot sustain the delivery of its provisions to those who would earn an income, tax free and send it back across the border. Arizona is not taking measures this drastic because it gets off on causing racist rifts of this magnitude or because illegal immigration is good for Arizona. Let's quit kidding ourselves here.

- To say arguments such as "resource drain" and "taking jobs" is demonstrably false is laughable as they are in fact the primary draws into the US. While the illegal immigrant is not intending harm on the American economy, the result of failed immigration policy is staggering; immigrationcounters.com

- The overwhelming majority of data available on illegal immigration shows a net-loss not only on a state-by-state level, but most demonstrably in a nationwide loss in employment, in wages, in social services, and government revenue.

I like how once again we get to endure the word "racist" thrown around by those angry at you for opposing their slave trade.

Goodness gracious buddy, that site is as fair and balanced as Fox news! I don't expect you to understand this, because "you're white and that makes you alright". Talk to some of your brown-skinned friends, they will fill you in...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Goodness gracious buddy, that site is as fair and balanced as Fox news! I don't expect you to understand this, because "you're white and that makes you alright". Talk to some of your brown-skinned friends, they will fill you in...

Good thing you managed to make this about skin color and race within one post.

Troll.

-t

[smacintush]

It's like this…

If we are to have immigration laws I really don't have a problem with profiling. It's pretty moronic to have laws that we seem to want to allow almost NO means of actually enforcing. I don't think that there are too many techniques that we could use to track down illegals that would make too many of you on the left happy. This isn't like pulling over a black guy and searching his car because he is black.

That being said…

It all comes down to a great quote I heard the other day:

"If we don't have open borders in this country then we should give the statue of liberty back."

Sure, we may be a nation of laws, but we were a nation of openness and freedom first. The first hundred years we had no immigration laws in this country and we are all the better for it.

Security and crime are not and excuse. I put freedom above security, and let's face it current immigration laws are actually doing NOTHING to prevent terrorists or any other of the wrong sorts from entering the country and they never will.

I do have a problem with catering to people who refuse to learn english. Learning the language of the country you choose to live in is your responsibility and if you don't you deserve whatever consequences befall you.

[hyteckit]

More proof that conservatives want a big government and police state. They have no respect for the constitution, specifically the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

More proof that conservatives want a big government and police state. They have no respect for the constitution, specifically the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

What provision in the law is a breech of the 4th amendment?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Goodness gracious buddy, that site is as fair and balanced as Fox news! I don't expect you to understand this, because "you're white and that makes you alright". Talk to some of your brown-skinned friends, they will fill you in...

I understand full well that there are a disproportionate number of those of color being unfairly treated in society and I realize first and foremost that there is a socioeconomic component to this mistreatment. Can you tell me how illegal immigration helps their plight in our society? Can you tell me how driving down their wages, taking their jobs, and exhausting our social services is helping them? No? Maybe you should put more than 30 seconds of thought into an argument.

*hint, it's apparently too much to ask that someone might actually address any one of the points I raised. I gave you a link to calculations of the cost of illegal immigration. Got anything to refute the figures? How about something that shows how illegal immigration is a net-gain for the country?

Your support of the Latino slave trade is not compassionate, it is naive and destructive to the minorities who reside here legally. Maybe if you actually associated with anyone of color living here legally, you'd understand.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It all comes down to a great quote I heard the other day:

"If we don't have open borders in this country then we should give the statue of liberty back."

That we need to do anyways, just look where Republicans and Democrats have taken us.
We are a nation in bondage by debt. THere is no freedom about it.

But to your point: you can't have a social welfare system with open borders.
The problem we have with immigration is only a problem as long as you give freebies to everyone.

I say: get ride of all handouts, and allow anyone back to work in the USA.
Make the USA a meritocracy like it has been in the past.
That will make us a great country again.

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Fact ? Links, please.

As far as I can tell, your "facts" are not true.

Have a look at this:

El Paso, Texas (TX) New York, New York (NY) Detailed Profiles - travel and real estate info, jobs, hotels, hospitals, weather, schools, crime, ...

In violent and property crimes, El Paso ranks same as NY, NY. Well above the average of the US.

-t

El Paso, one of the safest big cities in America: The El Paso Miracle - Reason Magazine

The 'big' makes a difference, as of 2009 only New York and Honolulu rank safer than El Paso as big cities in the US. The national average is lower because big cities have a higher concentration of people and poverty, and therefore crime.

[turtle777]

You got nothing better against FBI based data than an article in an El Paso newspaper ?

Look here:

Table 6 - Crime in the United States 2008

El Paso, TX M.S.A. (2008)
Violent crime (Rate per 100,000 inhabitants): 437.1
Property crime (Rate per 100,000 inhabitants): 3109.8

Other few big cities / metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) with similar size (500,000-1,000,000 people) that are safer (both in terms of violent and property crime):
Boise City, ID; Peabody, MA; Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT; Denver, CO; Des Moins, IA; Harrisburg, PA; Lancaster, PA; Madison, WI; Ogden-Clearfield, UT; Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA; Portland, ME; Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY; Worcester, MA

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You got nothing better against FBI based data than an article in an El Paso newspaper ?

Look here:

Table 6 - Crime in the United States 2008

El Paso, TX M.S.A. (2008)
Violent crime (Rate per 100,000 inhabitants): 437.1
Property crime (Rate per 100,000 inhabitants): 3109.8

Other few big cities / metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) with similar size (500,000-1,000,000 people) that are safer (both in terms of violent and property crime):
Boise City, ID; Peabody, MA; Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT; Denver, CO; Des Moins, IA; Harrisburg, PA; Lancaster, PA; Madison, WI; Ogden-Clearfield, UT; Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA; Portland, ME; Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY; Worcester, MA

-t

Data from 2008 hardly invalidates an article from late 2009...

[SpaceMonkey]

The article bases its claims on "last year" (2008) figures, though. I suspect the difference comes down to whether or not you include property crime, as the article only cites violent crime stats.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Ignoring, for now, the issue of whether it's really the case that illegal immigrants 'take jobs' and 'drain resources' (at least some of the claims in this regard are absolutely and demonstrably false), the important questions regarding this, and any other, law are a) will it be effective at achieving the stated goals, and b) will it do so without introducing undue burden on the average citizen. I believe the answer to both of these questions to be no, in this case.

Sneaking into our country, working for money (where a citizen could be doing that job) and using the emergency room as a doctor/healthcare DOES IN FACT take jobs and resources. I find it amazing you would think otherwise. Propaganda as your news sources hasn't helped you see the facts. The feds have not don't what is legally required of them so the states can take matters into their own hands. 70 percent of AZ residents were for that legislation.

[BadKosh]

The point is that they are still here illegally. Those looking the other way seem to be on the side of the lawless as well. Those in law enforcement and politicians who know others are here illegally and don't do anything should be removed. Our laws must stand for something.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

There's no relevant schools of thought.

States cannot thread onto the jurisdiction of federal law enforcement.

Actually, when the feds fail to do their job the States can step in.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Actually, when the feds fail to do their job the States can step in.

No, they can't (at least not on this). Sorry.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Sneaking into our country, working for money (where a citizen could be doing that job) and using the emergency room as a doctor/healthcare DOES IN FACT take jobs and resources. I find it amazing you would think otherwise. Propaganda as your news sources hasn't helped you see the facts. The feds have not don't what is legally required of them so the states can take matters into their own hands. 70 percent of AZ residents were for that legislation.

Illegal immigrants working 'takes jobs' only if their net contribution to the economy does not end up creating more jobs. It is entirely possible that illegal immigration is a net gain for our economy. There have been studies done on this and while I'm sure results are mixed, there is definitely evidence that the jobs worked by illegal immigrants would not be filled by citizens if those immigrants were not available.

And it's true that using the emergency room and such does take resources. However it is completely a lie that they don't pay for these resources. Most illegal immigrants are working with a fake SSN, which means they are paying exactly as much into the system as a legal resident or citizen would be. However they tend to make less use of the services that are available because they don't want to get caught. So again, net gain from illegal immigration.

It doesn't matter if 70% of Arizona residents were in favor of this law. Just because the majority believes or wants something does not make it right, a fact which is enshrined in our republican system of government.

[Chongo]

This author has an excellent idea, Let have one immigration policy for all NAFTA signers, Mexico's.
Immigration Reform? Let's Try Mexico's Immigration Law!

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:

immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

this section cites the relevant portions of the Mexican law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The point is that they are still here illegally. Those looking the other way seem to be on the side of the lawless as well. Those in law enforcement and politicians who know others are here illegally and don't do anything should be removed. Our laws must stand for something.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I, for one, am in favor of open immigration. If and only if that happens would I approve of retroactive immunity for current illegals, but you are right that they are currently breaking the law. I just think that the problem is with the law, not the people. Unjust laws should be broken and I believe our current immigration laws to be unjust.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The point is that they are still here illegally. Those looking the other way seem to be on the side of the lawless as well. Those in law enforcement and politicians who know others are here illegally and don't do anything should be removed. Our laws must stand for something.

No one is "looking the other way." Police already check the immigration status of people they have detained. But if you require them to stop people on suspicion of illegal status, it impedes their ability to carry out other investigative functions and properly serve their communities. That's why many police chiefs in Arizona and elsewhere have come out against the bill.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Data from 2008 hardly invalidates an article from late 2009...

You are a hopeless case. Go through the data of the other years.
Official 2009 numbers are not published for MSA, so if the El Paso newspaper claims to have those data, i'd like to know their source.

Sorry, you just lost a lot of credibility in my book.
It's one thing to make factual statements that turn out to be wishful thinking.

It's yet another to not admit when you're mistaken.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You are a hopeless case. Go through the data of the other years.
Official 2009 numbers are not published for MSA, so if the El Paso newspaper claims to have those data, i'd like to know their source.

Sorry, you just lost a lot of credibility in my book.
It's one thing to make factual statements that turn out to be wishful thinking.

It's yet another to not admit when you're mistaken.

-t

And it's another thing to take down a strawman. Nonhuman's article didn't make any claims about property crime.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And it's another thing to take down a strawman. Nonhuman's article didn't make any claims about property crime.

That's why all the cities I listed are safer than El Paso in Violent Crimes as well as Property Crimes.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's why all the cities I listed are safer than El Paso in Violent Crimes as well as Property Crimes.

-t

Then don't get all huffy and question his credibility if you recognize that you are measuring two different things in order to try to qualify a third ("safety").

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Then don't get all huffy and question his credibility if you recognize that you are measuring two different things in order to try to qualify a third ("safety").

Dude, WTF ? Go an re-read and apply some logic.

He claimed El Paso is one of the safest cities, third to New York and Honolulu.
(He did NOT define what he means by safety).

I linked to FACTS that state that El Paso is worse than more than a dozen cities, in both Violent Crimes and and Property Crimes. (Whatever you think safety consists of, it should be covered by either or both.)

His credibility is gone because he only drew conclusions from a local El Paso newspaper, whereas I linked to official FBI crime statistics. He should admit that the newspaper probably used some obscure data twisting technique to get to their conclusion.

Whatever. It's pretty clear that El Paso is NOT one of the safest cities in the US. As if anyone ever believed that

(Full disclosure: I don't live in El Paso, but I traveled there on a regular basis, my company has a plant in Juarez, and I now people that live in El Paso.)

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dude, WTF ? Go an re-read and apply some logic.

He claimed El Paso is one of the safest cities, third to New York and Honolulu.
(He did NOT define what he means by safety).

I linked to FACTS that state that El Paso is worse than more than a dozen cities, in both Violent Crimes and and Property Crimes. (Whatever you think safety consists of, it should be covered by either or both.)

His credibility is gone because he only drew conclusions from a local El Paso newspaper, whereas I linked to official FBI crime statistics. He should admit that the newspaper probably used some obscure data twisting technique to get to their conclusion.

The point remains, if you are using a different set of metrics to define safety, then you are not proving his previous information wrong. You are arguing against his point using new information. There is no "credibility" issue on his part there. That was needlessly antagonistic on your part.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

More proof that conservatives want a big government and police state. They have no respect for the constitution, specifically the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

More proof that libs have no respect for any law that they don't like. Protection of our borders and safety of the citizens is the job of the president and congress. They have failed to do that job for decades. When is the last time anyone in the current admin even read the constitution? You know, tampering in private businesses, bailing out businesses etc. REquiring citizens to contract for services like insurance.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The point remains, if you are using a different set of metrics to define safety, then you are not proving his previous information wrong. You are arguing against his point using new information. There is no "credibility" issue on his part there. That was needlessly antagonistic on your part.

I don't buy that "different definition" argument.
It's a cheap cop out used when someone is proven wrong by facts.

What I hear you saying is that BOTH pieces of information are right and valid because the newspaper might use a different definition of safety than the FBI crime statistic.

That's BS to me. Anyone can make up some obscure definition and prove it by obscure statistics.

Fact is, when it comes to COMPARABLE numbers (FBI crime statistics), El Paso is by far not as safe as claimed by nonhuman and the local newspaper.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't buy that "different definition" argument.
It's a cheap cop out used when someone is proven wrong by facts.

What I hear you saying is that BOTH pieces of information are right and valid because the newspaper might use a different definition of safety than the FBI crime statistic.

That's BS to me. Anyone can make up some obscure definition and prove it by obscure statistics.

Fact is, when it comes to COMPARABLE numbers (FBI crime statistics), El Paso is by far not as safe as claimed by nonhuman and the local newspaper.

-t

I'm not saying you are wrong. If person A introduces an argument (El Paso is one of the safest cities in America) based on some measure of safety, and person B challenges that argument by introducing a wider range of measures of safety, then person B may be right but they have no basis for challenging the personal integrity of person A ("credibility"), who was arguing an honest position. That is what I am criticizing.

[turtle777]

For most people that know what's going on in Juarez, it's utterly inconceivable that El Paso would be one of the safest cities in the US.

But, whatever, if some local newspaper says El Paso is safe, it probably is true.

I'm done arguing this.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Great, I'm glad you've figured out that I'm not actually arguing with you.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Great, I'm glad you've figured out that I'm not actually arguing with you.

Yes, I realize that now

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

More crap straight out of the left's "label everything you disagree with racist!" playbook. Gee, it's not like we haven't seen that tactic before- with virtually EVERY ISSUE, from tax cuts to healthcare, to national security, to immigration, etc. etc..

I've rarely seen such a mass circle-kneejerk as over this bill, and as usual, by people that haven't even considered actually READING the damn thing. Immediately the crazy left just jumped in with all their usual scare tactics, when most of it is the exact opposite of the claims.

There's nothing in the bill about racial profiling- in fact, it expressly prohibits racial profiling. There's nothing in the bill about just stopping anyone for any reason and asking for papers- in fact, just the opposite, it requires a traffic violation or other reason a police officer would normally pull someone over, and normally ask for papers such as a licence and registration. (Oh but that's right, it's fascist to ask for those things.) It doesn't grant police any broader provisions for pulling people over and stopping them.

Notice how no one can cite any provision in the actual law itself that's actually 'illegal' because it's actually nothing more than the enforcement of existing immigration laws. And anyway, hasn't the left been preaching that merely by removing the term 'illegal' from a subject, it magically becomes legal anyway? Why all of a sudden any emphasis on pointing up the 'illegal' status of something?

If one connects the dots, there's one simple reason that now granting amnesty and opposing anything that's effective against illegal immigration will become the new 'crisis'. Democrats know the writing is on the wall for them to lose big in 2010, and beyond that, the Emperor may stand a good chance of losing in 2012. Gee whiz, how to manufacture a couple million voters out of thin air between now and 2012... hmmm...

Oh but Crash, surely granting backdoor amnesty and soon thereafter voting rights to millions of people here illegally isn't something that can be rammed through overnight- why, such a drastic change to the country would require passing multi-thousand page bills that no one would have time to read before blinding voting on, and crammed through without any oversight via backroom arm-twisting and shady closed door votes. Why, the administration would never resort to such... oh, oops. Wait a minute.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I like how once again we get to endure the word "racist" thrown around by those angry at you for opposing their slave trade.

100% dead-on. I honestly believe the same people if sent back in time, would argue against the abolition of slavery on the same rotten grounds they use to support illegal immigration, which really, is a subset of the same economic beliefs. "What???! Why, we can't have affordable cotton products without armies of black people out in the fields picking it! Those are jobs Americans won't do!! Who would clean anything, cook anything, build anything, plant and harvest our food, take care of our kids, deliver our goods, landscape our property etc. etc. if not those armies of people we demand be shipped in here to do it all for cheap! Americans can't do any of those things!!! We need armies of dark-skinned people here to do it for us and if you're against that, YOU'RE RACIST!!"

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There's nothing in the bill about just stopping anyone for any reason and asking for papers- in fact, just the opposite, it requires a traffic violation or other reason a police officer would normally pull someone over, and normally ask for papers such as a licence and registration.

False. Did you read it? Here is the relevant section:

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON." (Sec. 2, clause B)

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf