[The Godfather]

I am on the fence on whether I should support or boycott Arizona, but in the meantime, what are products or services to prefer/repudiate so I can have maximum economic effect?

[mduell]

Some Kostard proposed a boycott of Arizona-headquartered companies and did the research for you: U-Haul, PetSmart, US Airways, Cold Stone Creamery, and GoDaddy.

[hyteckit]

Tourism.

They don't welcome anyone who might not look like a US citizen.

Overwhelm their tourism board with questions about the new law.

http://industry.bnet.com/travel/1000...to-fight-back/

[ghporter]

I already hate GoDaddy...

I'm not sure how this whole Arizona law thing will play out, but I am certain that unilaterally deciding someone who cannot prove they are a US citizen is violating a state law is the wrong way to go. Quite aside from the whole "illegal" immigration thing (immigrating without permission is a civil wrong-a federal tort, NOT a crime), the only real, lasting effect this will have is to put names to the people who wrote and passed this law and can (whether accurately or not) be painted as "racist, reactionary and bigoted."

Oh, and whom are they going to harass for their "papers?" Probably not any Anglos... The whole scheme stinks.

[hyteckit]

I just read the article.

Arizona Boycott Goes Viral As State's Tourism Industry Tries to Fight Back | BNET Travel Blog | BNET

Asian American Hotel Owners Association (its members own 40% of U.S. hotels).

Wow. Asians own 40% US hotels? That's surprising.


Anyway, I don't think boycotting companies based out of Arizona is the way to go.

A big drop in tourism dollars would definitely get Arizona to reconsider the negative impacts of the law. After all, a big percentage of Arizona's tourism aren't US citizens.

[The Godfather]

Ok. So the better question is how should one support or boycott the businesses of xenophobes in Arizona?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

Ok. So the better question is how should one support or boycott the businesses of xenophobes in Arizona?

I agree that this is the better question. Finding out what businesses support the xenophobic law would help target the state legislators' support base. Because you know that at least some of the support for this thing comes from people who don't like anyone from outside their own neighborhood...

[Shaddim]

Make sure to post the names of these companies, I want to purchase as many products and services from them as possible to help offset the boycott.

[hyteckit]

I think the industries that will take the biggest hit in Arizona will be Lodging, tourism-related, and conventions.

Immigration law fallout ripples through Arizona economy

That's get the lodging and tourism related companies to lobby Arizona to repeal the law.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Make sure to post the names of these companies, I want to purchase as many products and services from them as possible to help offset the boycott.

Here they all:

US Airways, PetSmart, P.F. Chang's China Bistro and the University of Phoenix

Remember to eat the PF Chang's everyday for a whole month and enroll in University of Phoenix.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I'm not sure how this whole Arizona law thing will play out, but I am certain that unilaterally deciding someone who cannot prove they are a US citizen is violating a state law is the wrong way to go. Quite aside from the whole "illegal" immigration thing (immigrating without permission is a civil wrong-a federal tort, NOT a crime), the only real, lasting effect this will have is to put names to the people who wrote and passed this law and can (whether accurately or not) be painted as "racist, reactionary and bigoted."

Since most of the country including most of this forum that chose to respond actually support the law, this may catapult their careers as perceived leaders instead of followers.

Oh, and whom are they going to harass for their "papers?" Probably not any Anglos... The whole scheme stinks.

The "scheme" didn't start with Arizona. The scheme started at the Federal level. The reason it stinks to some here is because the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic or Latino, but their ethnicity is no more a concern to Arizona than it is to you. The only difference is Arizona is obligated to protect the interests of legal Arizona residents, including the over 30% Hispanic and Latino population. There is no provision in SB1070 to "harass" anyone for anything. SB1070 mirrors Federal legislation and only seeks to enforce the immigration laws the Federal government drafted for a vote, then failed to address for a vote. Arizona does not need to endure the result of Federal political paralysis. Those "papers" you're up in arms about are already required by Federal law and if they were never intended to be used to help establish legal residency, what exactly are they for?

Already shop at PetSmart so I've got that covered. I'm curious about something though... We're really going to boycott the businesses of Arizona that employ the over 30% of Arizona's legal Hispanic and Latino population as a show of solidarity to the Hispanic and Latino communities? I mean, you could boycott almost any other state in the country and adversely affect many fewer Latinos and Hispanics. Brilliant!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Make sure to post the names of these companies, I want to purchase as many products and services from them as possible to help offset the boycott.

Let it be known that by supporting Arizona, you'll be supporting a state that is home to among the largest populations of Hispanics and Latinos; a real show of solidarity and support to those communities!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Remember to eat the PF Chang's everyday for a whole month and enroll in University of Phoenix.

By enrolling in the University of Phoenix, you will be showing a great deal of solidarity to not only the Hispanic and Latino communities, but to minority success overall:

The 2008 UPX Academic Report[42] shows a diverse student and faculty makeup. According to demographic information in the report, on average, the student/faculty population is more diverse than the national average for higher education institutions. African-Americans make up more than 15% of the university's 22,000 faculty members, with about 6% as Latino. The national average in recent years showed about 5% as African-American with about 3% as Latino. The student population is approximately 25% African-American and almost 13% Latino. This is as compared to national statistics from recent years, showing 12% African-American populations and 10% Latino populations nationally.[43] The university graduates a larger number of underrepresented students with Master's degrees in business, health care, and education than any other U.S. School.

Who's up for boycotting the University of Phoenix now? A show of hands please so we know who all the racists and bigots are.

[andi*pandi]

A boycott won't hurt the fatcats, just the regular shmos who put together the conventions and tour packages.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

I am on the fence on whether I should support or boycott Arizona, but in the meantime, what are products or services to prefer/repudiate so I can have maximum economic effect?

You're on the fence between finding the law reprehensible enough to boycott Arizona and virtuous enough to support Arizona? Does not compute.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By enrolling in the University of Phoenix, you will be showing a great deal of solidarity to not only the Hispanic and Latino communities, but to minority success overall:

The 2008 UPX Academic Report[42] shows a diverse student and faculty makeup. According to demographic information in the report, on average, the student/faculty population is more diverse than the national average for higher education institutions. African-Americans make up more than 15% of the university's 22,000 faculty members, with about 6% as Latino. The national average in recent years showed about 5% as African-American with about 3% as Latino. The student population is approximately 25% African-American and almost 13% Latino. This is as compared to national statistics from recent years, showing 12% African-American populations and 10% Latino populations nationally.[43] The university graduates a larger number of underrepresented students with Master's degrees in business, health care, and education than any other U.S. School.

Who's up for boycotting the University of Phoenix now? A show of hands please so we know who all the racists and bigots are.

I don't know. Are you implying the racists and bigots are the Latinos who boycott University of Phoenix by not enrolling in the school or canceling their enrollment due to the new Arizona immigration law?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're on the fence between finding the law reprehensible enough to boycott Arizona and virtuous enough to support Arizona? Does not compute.

Makes more sense than something who thinks is racist or bigot for Latinos to boycott University of Phoenix by not enrolling in the school or canceling their enrollment.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Makes more sense than something who thinks is racist or bigot for Latinos to boycott University of Phoenix by not enrolling in the school or canceling their enrollment.

A University that grants more Master's degrees to underrepresented students than any other University in the country and employs a faculty of double the national average of Latinos? It makes sense to boycott them? Seriously?

What does the University of Phoenix have to do with the legislators of Arizona anyway??? You're right, maybe the boycotters aren't as much bigots and racists as they are slobbering morons.

[BadKosh]

Suddenly the AZ law is really bad because it mirrors the federal one.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A University that grants more Master's degrees to underrepresented students than any other University in the country and employs a faculty of double the national average of Latinos? It makes sense to boycott them? Seriously?

What does the University of Phoenix have to do with the legislators of Arizona anyway??? You're right, maybe the boycotters aren't as much bigots and racists as they are slobbering morons.

I'm glad you can admit you are wrong.

Initially in this thread, I have said it might not be a good idea to boycott companies based out of Arizona.

However, you have to convinced me boycotting companies based out of Arizona, such as University of Phoenix, is a good idea.


I think Latino faculty members and students of University of Phoenix should protest in front of headquarters and demand the school to issue a public statement against the new Arizona immigration law. Similar to protest at other Universities.

All the companies based in Arizona should be boycotted until the issue a public statement against the new Arizona immigration law.

The only way for the Arizona government to repeal the law is when enough businesses and trade groups in Arizona put enough pressure on the Arizona government.


I've changed my mind. Boycotting Arizona based businesses is a good idea after-all.

BOYCOTT ARIZONA BUSINESSES NOW!

Boycott those businesses until the issue a public statement against the new Arizona immigration law.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I agree that this is the better question. Finding out what businesses support the xenophobic law would help target the state legislators' support base. Because you know that at least some of the support for this thing comes from people who don't like anyone from outside their own neighborhood...

Well, and I guess we need a list of those companies who support illegal immigration in Arizona. Maybe we'd be better off trying to make a list of those who don't!

You know, some of the rhetoric against Arizona's new law is coming from Commie Pinko Leftists, too, who tend to hate everyone FROM their own neighborhoods...

I don't think this is about racism, I think it's about uniformity of enforcement, and a lack of progress in federal efforts to fix the illegal immigration issue. This is thrown out as a challenge to the ineffective federal enforcement of the border, and there seem to be plenty of folks of Latin heritage in Arizona who think this is a good thing.

They don't post on MacNN I guess.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The funniest thing was the dimbulbs who wanted to boycott Arizona Ice Tea. Never mind the fact that it's made by a company in New York. Classic move by the people that don't often bother with pesky things like facts before they feign outrage. Much like the idea of boycotting AZ to begin with.

Myself and several others I know are planning more travel than ever to AZ, and more spending while we're there. I always love getting out to AZ: Sedona, Lake Powell, Lake Havasu, The Grand Canyon, Phoenix/Scottsdale, Tuscon, etc.

If all the dumbells actually keep their promise NOT to be there littering up the place while I'm there, all the better. It'll be even more a haven from the insanity produced by political correctness gone haywire. PLEASE keep your word and stay out.

[ort888]

I'm boycotting dry heat.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I'm boycotting dry heat.

And dry heaves.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Well, and I guess we need a list of those companies who support illegal immigration in Arizona. Maybe we'd be better off trying to make a list of those who don't!

You know, some of the rhetoric against Arizona's new law is coming from Commie Pinko Leftists, too, who tend to hate everyone FROM their own neighborhoods...

I don't think this is about racism, I think it's about uniformity of enforcement, and a lack of progress in federal efforts to fix the illegal immigration issue. This is thrown out as a challenge to the ineffective federal enforcement of the border, and there seem to be plenty of folks of Latin heritage in Arizona who think this is a good thing.

They don't post on MacNN I guess.

Why is it that my saying "I don't think this was the best way to do this" is being equated to "I like illegal immigration." Far from it. I would personally like to see every single employer of illegals have to pay through their noses-both in fines for breaking the law (undocumented immigration is a civil matter, but employing someone who did so IS A CRIME) and to make it up to the illegals they cheated/raped/abused by paying less than they would have paid citizens.

But I don't think that any single state making "failure to comply with a federal regulation" a state crime is a good idea. First off, the Federal courts have slapped down someone in New England (wasn't it Connecticut?) for local law enforcement "enforcing immigration law" in place of Federal law enforcement. Second, a half-thought out plan that puts the onus on Arizona for "doing something about immigration" will either prove that Arizona can spend a whole lot of money actually doing something by their own laws, or that they can't follow their own laws. Either way is bad for Arizona.

I believe the real way to deal with illegal immigration is to have a guest worker program that makes the employers pay. If an employer (the guy who actually hires someone and all the way to the top suit in the business) can physically go to jail for not paying a guest worker (with or without papers) the minimum wage-plus basic benefits-then they're not going to hire very many of them anyway. Plus people who DO come north to work could make enough money to do what most say they want to do, which is send money home to help their families. According to World Bank, Mexicans in the US sent about $22B home in 2009-down significantly from previous years.

I live in San Antonio-I get criticized from time to time for not speaking Spanish, even though I grew up in Michigan... But here we see relatively few "illegal settlers." Most illegals are workers-doing stuff that employers can get them to do for peanuts so they can send money home. By putting every corporate officer on notice that HE can do REAL TIME for allowing anyone in his firm to hire someone and not pay legal wages (plus those benefits), we could put a huge dent in companies willing to hire people for crappy wages. Sure, some prices would go up, but that would even out over a year or two and not be an issue.

Putting the responsibility on the people who abuse illegals rather than the people that risk their lives to get here just to work would fix a lot of problems. The very few who actually do come to settle (without some valid reason and permission) would be easy to sort out and deal with, and those who want to flee grinding poverty in a place that's being run by drug gangsters might just be able to get asylum here, instead of being hostages to the narcoterrorists back home.

But that's just my opinion. Arizona may have a decent "basic concept" in "doing something about illegal immigration," but they're going about it wrong, and the people who profit from illegals (coyotes and US employers) will still make plenty of money. Which is just wrong all the way around.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm glad you can admit you are wrong.

Initially in this thread, I have said it might not be a good idea to boycott companies based out of Arizona.

However, you have to convinced me boycotting companies based out of Arizona, such as University of Phoenix, is a good idea.

I've convinced you to boycott the University of Phoenix by telling you how ethnically diverse they are and how they've championed minority achievement?

Troll away troll.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've convinced you to boycott the University of Phoenix by telling you how ethnically diverse they are and how they've championed minority achievement?

Troll away troll.

No, you have convinced me boycotting companies like University of Phoenix would have a great impact on getting them to influence the Arizona government on repealing the law.

The bigger the presence of Latinos/Hispanics at the University of Phoenix, the bigger the influence they have on the school.

Imaging University of Phoenix is comprise of 50% hispanic/latinos students.

I bet a boycott by hispanic/latinos students by canceling their enrollment would have a great impact on University of Phoenix.

That'll sure convince University of Phoenix to pressure Arizona government.

A day without a mexican?

GO BOYCOTT!

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

[...snip...]

My God, I think that might be the most logical response to this situation I've seen yet. Kudos.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No, you have convinced me boycotting companies like University of Phoenix would have a great impact on getting them to influence the Arizona government on repealing the law.

The bigger the presence of Latinos/Hispanics at the University of Phoenix, the bigger the influence they have on the school.

Imaging University of Phoenix is comprise of 50% hispanic/latinos students.

I bet a boycott by hispanic/latinos students by canceling their enrollment would have a great impact on University of Phoenix.

That'll sure convince University of Phoenix to pressure Arizona government.

A day without a mexican?

GO BOYCOTT!

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Why is it that my saying "I don't think this was the best way to do this" is being equated to "I like illegal immigration."

No, I understood your original post. But I wanted to respond to the idea that there are supporters on each side of the issue. I do, however, think that folks have been pushed too far in many ways, and are tired of the problem. I hear that here in Texas all the time (often by folks who don't mind having their lawns mowed by illegals).

I drive by Home Depot every morning where there are 50-100 able-bodied guys standing around the taco truck, and I'd guess that some of them might be illegals. Many of them are still there in the afternoon when I go by. There are two street corners closer to home where a combined 50-100 workers hang out, daily, and wait for work - or ICE. So the idea that "nothing can be done" is something people are tired of hearing. OF COURSE something could be done.

[hyteckit]

Here's a list of the cities that have announced travel and/or city-contract boycotts so far:

• Seattle, Washington
• El Paso, Texas
• Austin, Texas
• Boston, Massachusetts
• St. Paul, Minnesota
• Boulder, Colorado
• San Diego, California
• West Hollywood, California
• San Francisco, California
• Los Angeles, California
• Oakland, California
• Berkeley, California

And here is a roster of groups that have announced travel boycotts
• Service Employees International Union
• United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
• National Council of La Raza
• Asian American Justice Center
• Center for Community Change
• League of United Latin American Citizens
• National Puerto Rican Coalition
• Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Suddenly the AZ law is really bad because it mirrors the federal one.

Yes, because it's a different context. The wrong organization doing the job, leading to potentially undesirable results in the eyes of many. You'll find that many people who oppose the AZ law, like me, support stronger federal enforcement measures.

[Chongo]

I hope the boycott includes our water and electricity. Arizona has been selling a portion of our Colorado River allotment to CA cities, We also sell electricity to CA and other states in the western US.

[lpkmckenna]

Boycotting companies because of the policies of governments is stupid.

[DrTacoMD]

I'm boycotting saguaro cacti. Next time I see one growing wild in Seattle, I'm burning the ****er down.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

I am on the fence on whether I should support or boycott Arizona, but in the meantime, what are products or services to prefer/repudiate so I can have maximum economic effect?

How about the federal government, since the Arizona law is the same thing as federal immigration laws?

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, because it's a different context. The wrong organization doing the job, leading to potentially undesirable results in the eyes of many. You'll find that many people who oppose the AZ law, like me, support stronger federal enforcement measures.

I remember a rancher a few months back who was killed on his own property by illegal immigrants. You support illegal homicide too?

[Chongo]

Looks like someone like my idea of shutting the power to LA
Arizona regulator slams Los Angeles boycott over immigration law, cites exported electricity - latimes.com
http://www.cc.state.az.us/commission...ts/5-18-10.pdf

[ebuddy]

Everyone should boycott everyone. hyteckit has produced a list of all those who are proposing or have authored some measure of boycott against Arizona. The remainder of States with sane legislators should return the favor by boycotting an already bankrupted CA. Make 'em all pay, that's what I say. Civil War!

• The best way to show solidarity to immigrants is to boycott the States with the largest percentages of them. Brilliant! In fact, I say target the travel and hospitality industry specifically.
• I hear a lot in this thread about Federal jurisdiction etc..., but I've not seen these fresh-faced "Federal jurisdiction" advocates express any problems whatsoever with sanctuary cities; those that have decided not to support Federal immigration policy.
• IMO, a slave trade is not an acceptable means to your desired end. If it were, child labor would be perfectly acceptable in this country.
• If you want higher wages in the US, you generally need to spend over 3 years in college, but for whatever reason an average 3 years to get into this country legally is unacceptable, unfair, and oppressive?
• "Reasonable suspicion" is an ideal with a great deal of legal precedent. If you're caught speeding in a corridor of known illegal immigrant trafficking and you've got folks in the trunk, you won't have to look like anything other than stupid to be a suspected illegal immigrant and asked for your papers. The "it's all about the skin tone" folks once again make all of their decisions based on skin color, then insist everyone else must be also. People aren't going to be stopped for looking a certain way then asked for their papers. If you're breaking the law and you're approached by an officer, you'll be asked for identification. There isn't a person in the US be him black, white, yellow, red, blue, green, or orange that doesn't know this.
• Any law ever drafted leaves open the possibility of discrimination.
• LA boycotts Arizona? Arizona pulls 25% of LA's electricity. Let's do this. GO ARIZONA!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

How about the federal government, since the Arizona law is the same thing as federal immigration laws?

Reason, logic, and actual knowledge of the Arizona law have no place when there's a lucrative slave trade hanging in the balance. They're doing work Americans don't wanna do...

... for $7/hr. Why hire into the surplus of unskilled laborers (including legal minority and immigrant citizens) already in the country at $25/hr when you can pay much less? If you can do this and get a lock on a burgeoning voting bloc, you're a winner!

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

How about the federal government, since the Arizona law is the same thing as federal immigration laws?

Federal immigration statutes are CIVIL, Arizona's law is a criminal law. Not "the same thing" at all. Besides, the federal government has jurisdiction over international borders, not Arizona.

I do not support uncontrolled immigration. But I don't (as I've said before) think Arizona's approach is the best idea for immigration reform-by a long shot.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I remember a rancher a few months back who was killed on his own property by illegal immigrants. You support illegal homicide too?

That's a tragedy, but it's a poor response to my point. Disagreeing about the solution is not the same thing as supporting the problem.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Federal immigration statutes are CIVIL, Arizona's law is a criminal law. Not "the same thing" at all. Besides, the federal government has jurisdiction over international borders, not Arizona.

I do not support uncontrolled immigration. But I don't (as I've said before) think Arizona's approach is the best idea for immigration reform-by a long shot.

The states can take matters into their own hands when the feds fail to do their jobs. Blame all you want, just close the damn borders before you continue.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The states can take matters into their own hands when the feds fail to do their jobs. Blame all you want, just close the damn borders before you continue.

What blame? I simply don't think Arizona's angle on this is the right way to go about it. I suggested a very strong method to control immigration earlier in this thread-I've passed this to several of my US elected representatives.

States do NOT have the Constitutional power to handle certain issues, which includes national security and international issues-those are specifically reserved for the Federal government. By coming up with a plan that will (not may) produce significant problems for US citizens, Arizona has both overstepped its Constitutional authority AND made itself look like its state government is full of anti-Latino bigots. Is either one of these a smart thing to do?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

If the law is unconstitutional or bigoted, then PROVE IT, citing the actual law, and using facts.

So far, we've seen a lot of bluster and claims of all this, but no facts to back it up.

The truth is, people like Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County AZ, have been enforcing the existing laws FOR YEARS, and even though all the usual suspects have howled and whined and yelled "racist!" and "unconstitutional!" and tried to (imagine it) shut down a law enforcement agency for *drumroll* ENFORCING THE LAW!- it's all been just a bunch of emotion driven bluster.

I personally hope AZ stands firm and says to all those howling, "If you have some ACTUAL legal challenge against our enforcing the law then BRING IT, and actually PROVE your case. Otherwise, STFU." Of course, Eric Holder et al may actually have to READ the law first, and we all know that's a real hardship for busybody bureaucrat blowhards, but so be it.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

What blame? I simply don't think Arizona's angle on this is the right way to go about it. I suggested a very strong method to control immigration earlier in this thread-I've passed this to several of my US elected representatives.

States do NOT have the Constitutional power to handle certain issues, which includes national security and international issues-those are specifically reserved for the Federal government. By coming up with a plan that will (not may) produce significant problems for US citizens, Arizona has both overstepped its Constitutional authority AND made itself look like its state government is full of anti-Latino bigots. Is either one of these a smart thing to do?

Right on!

I do not support illegal immigration either. But the Arizona law is not the right way to do it.

Just require proof of legal citizenship or residence for all government funded services such as welfare and public education, with the exception of emergency healthcare.

Require proof of citizenship for a job and punish companies who hire illegal immigrants.


If illegal immigrants can't get free public services and can't get a job, most of them would leave on their own and many would not risk their lives trying to get here. Save tons of money in building borders and hire border patrolmen.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Right on!

I do not support illegal immigration either. But the Arizona law is not the right way to do it.

Just require proof of legal citizenship or residence for all government funded services such as welfare and public education, with the exception of emergency healthcare.

Require proof of citizenship for a job and punish companies who hire illegal immigrants.


If illegal immigrants can't get free public services and can't get a job, most of them would leave on their own and many would not risk their lives trying to get here. Save tons of money in building borders and hire border patrolmen.

The majority of illegals from Mexico and places south of there come here to work, not to become welfare clients. There are actually very few such leeches. But about emergency health care...Much of our CITIZEN population, those who earn little money, already use emergency rooms almost exclusively. Wait until you think you're at death's door, then go to the ER is the main way they get health care. So the whole health care reform thing hasn't been about "now we have to pay for the uninsured." We already do through local taxes the pay for emergency health care.

I have to stress that despite what pundits want us to believe, MOST illegal immigrants in the Southwest are here to work so they can send money home. Here in San Antonio, there are literally a very tiny minority of people who come here strictly for benefits, and those that I know of simply come here for competent and safe health care. At the emergency rooms my taxes pay for.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I remember a rancher a few months back who was killed on his own property by illegal immigrants. You support illegal homicide too?

Hahaha I have no idea what context this statement was made in, and I haven't been bothered to look at any replies... but it's really quite a fantastic post.

"I've been supporting illegal homicide since 2010"

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The majority of illegals from Mexico and places south of there come here to work, not to become welfare clients. There are actually very few such leeches. But about emergency health care...Much of our CITIZEN population, those who earn little money, already use emergency rooms almost exclusively. Wait until you think you're at death's door, then go to the ER is the main way they get health care. So the whole health care reform thing hasn't been about "now we have to pay for the uninsured." We already do through local taxes the pay for emergency health care.

I have to stress that despite what pundits want us to believe, MOST illegal immigrants in the Southwest are here to work so they can send money home. Here in San Antonio, there are literally a very tiny minority of people who come here strictly for benefits, and those that I know of simply come here for competent and safe health care. At the emergency rooms my taxes pay for.

Jobs is one of the things immigrants illegally come over here for.

I say there are 3 main things illegal immigrants come here for:

1. Jobs
2. Free Public Education
3. Welfare

If illegal immigrants have a hard time obtaining those 3, most will just leave on their own.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

States do NOT have the Constitutional power to handle certain issues, which includes national security and international issues-those are specifically reserved for the Federal government. By coming up with a plan that will (not may) produce significant problems for US citizens, Arizona has both overstepped its Constitutional authority AND made itself look like its state government is full of anti-Latino bigots. Is either one of these a smart thing to do?

This is simply incorrect ghporter. I've already cited the applicable jurisdictions in another thread, but I'll include it here as well.
justice.gov

Arrest of Illegal Aliens by State and Local Officers
Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 specifically authorizes state and local officers "whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. There is also a general federal statute which authorizes certain local officials to make arrests for violations of federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 3041. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. § 3041 authorizes those local officials to issue process for the arrest, to be executed by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977).
Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest warrant "shall be executed by a marshal or by some other officer authorized by law." The phrase, "some other officer," includes state and local officers. Bowdach, supra.
Section 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1252c which provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported and left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.
In the absence of a specific federal statute, the validity of an arrest without a warrant for violation of federal law by local peace officers is to be determined by reference to local law. See Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 589 (1948).
In approving a state trooper's arrest of persons who appeared to be illegal aliens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, simply, as follows: "A state trooper has general investigative authority to inquire into possible immigration violations." See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301, n. 3 (10th Cir. 1984).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), that the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not evidence an intent to preclude local enforcement of the act's criminal provisions. Id. at 474. Based on the pertinent legislative history, the court of appeals rejected the argument that since 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c) specifically authorizes local officers to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326 contain no comparable provision, Congress must have intended that local officers be precluded from making arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326. Id. at 475. The decision warns, however, that the first violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) is a misdemeanor, and that if applicable state law authorizes law enforcement officers to arrest for misdemeanors only if committed in their presence, they would not be authorized to arrest aliens for illegal entry (unless the officers should happen to know that the alien had previously been convicted of illegal entry) unless they saw him/her cross the border.

As Crash mentioned, you can't just keep saying Arizona's law is unconstitutional. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about the law. It mirrors and even clarifies Federal Immigration policy and is in line not only with original Federal immigration legislation, but beyond refutation when taken in context of additional authority granted State officials in 1996 and redefined again in response to 9/11 granting and in fact mandating State enforcement. I maintain that the notion that Arizona has overstepped its constitutional authority is founded on a lack of understanding SB1070 and Federal immigration policy.

Again, every law ever drafted allows for the possibility of discrimination. IMO, this simply is not a good enough cause to oppose this form of enforcement. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause with regard to illegal immigration legislation including the right to verify status and detain violators, enjoy a long legal precedent. Challenges to SB1070 will have to be taken on their legal merit which is why people keep crying "discrimination". The Arizona law is sound.