« Panic on the Streets of Carlisle...Dublin, Dundee, Humberside | Main | Hope, Faith, Her Vanity »

June 14, 2010

Comments

Bigots always look for cover to excuse their bigotry.

"The people being targeted by this law aren't committing crimes"

Except, of course, being here illegally.

And again, that would certainly make them out-of-state residents from a legal perspective. Seems pretty lame thing to complain about. The alternative, roundly suggested, to the Arizona law was better employment eligibility enforcement. I don't see how this really is different than that.

Except, of course, being here illegally.

So, the AZ law was necessary because of the spike in crime that wasn't really a spike so much as some people coming to Arizona to work, without going through the legal channels?

The alternative, roundly suggested, to the Arizona law was better employment eligibility enforcement. I don't see how this really is different than that.

The alternative was to crack down on employers, removing the incentive to come here, and thus reducing the influx. A little different than making it harder for kids to go to college because their parents are undocumented workers.

"It's been five years since we had a raise in pay
And they disallowed my business lunches today
Somebody must have changed the rules of the game
So we've found a convenient scapegoat we can blame
It's those teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs (They're too lazy to work)"
Austin Lounge Lizards

"A little different than making it harder for kids to go to college because their parents are undocumented workers"

No, it is not. It reduces the incentive to come here to get their kids a cheap education. At some point it comes down to a decision whether the laws should be enforced or not. They are illegally in the country, make it legal, or don't. Give everyone eternal amnesty or don't, but making illegal immigrants pay out of state tuition seems pretty reasonable as an admission policy.

"It reduces the incentives to come here and get their kids a cheap education."

I'll try to remember this wisdom next time we have a thread on the high cost of education and how we ought to cut teacher and professor salaries and eliminate tenure, to make it cheaper, so more people can afford an education blah, blah, blah blah .. blah.

What about the incentives for Americans to go to India for cheaper surgery? Let's get rid of those too. Sounds innovative as long as the beneficiaries are Americans.

What about the incentives to outsource American jobs to other countries?

But, yeah, a rational immigration policy would be a nice change.

John,

Blah,blah. It is perfectly fine to come from anywhere for an education. India, Ireland and Indonesia just to stay in the I's, but they pay out of state rates and have a student visa.

t. It reduces the incentive to come here to get their kids a cheap education.

Seriously, Marty, you think it's all about the low, low tuition rates that they're coming here for?

It strikes me as somewhat more economically effective for someone from Mexico to sent remittances back to Mexico so their kids can attend virtually free Mexican public unversities.

Seriously, Marty, this argument is weak even by your track record of being a nihilistic annoyance here.


eric: "So there's very little empirical evidence to support the idea that Arizona is being overwhelmed by an illegal immigrant crime wave, because it isn't."

It's been overwhelmed, overtaxed, overstressed by continuing and continuous crimes committed by illegals.

Although the FBI statistics you linked us to show Total Violent Crime was down 5.6% in Arizona in 2009, the remaining statistics are not insignificant. They show 18,135 Violent crimes committed, including murders, forcible rapes, robberies, assaults, property crimes. The crime numbers in fact are actually higher, because the FBI statistics only includes the 10 Arizona police agencies who reported to them.

Of those crimes, illegals committed 1,851, including 40 rapes and murders. That may not be a 'wave' but it's a pernicious unnecessary burden on Arizonians, and on all the rest of us in the Southwest who suffer similar percentages of assaults and robberies and murders at the hands of illegals, and the subsequent burden of paying for trials and incarceration.

If you tally up the Arizona crime statistics over the last eight years (available on line; Google Arizona Department of Public Safety Annual Report On Crime), Illegals have been arrested for more than 145,000 violent crimes, including 400 rapes and murders.

No, it's not a wave; it's the illegal immigration equivalent of the Gulf Of Mexico oil spill...

Bottom line: illegals left the country last year, and crime rates dropped in Arizona and elsewhere. And so did automobile fatalities: Arizona in 2009 had their lowest numbers of deaths in the past 15 years. Less illegals driving on the highways, less fatal accidents.

And as far as your boo-hooing about US college requirements for illegals, Mexico will only allow foreign students to register at their schools if they have an approved visa... no foreigner, no matter how long they've resided in Mexico, is admitted without proper documentation. But all Mexicans living in the US, no matter how long they've been here, were accorded Mexican citizenship by that government some years back, and if they qualify academically, they can get their education at the Mexican government's expense.

JJ, try doing some math:
1,851 crimes from immigrants out of 18,135 total works out to about 10%. This isn't a gushing wave of criminals flooding across the borders - it's a blip.

Of course, the crime statistics don't show all the crimes committed against immigrants that went unreported due to fear of being deported. But then, crimes against immigrants are not what has the tea party folks worried, either.

Your comment that "But all Mexicans living in the US, no matter how long they've been here, were accorded Mexican citizenship by that government some years back" is even more bizarre. If native-born Mexican citizens came to the US at an early age, why would they lose their Mexican citizenship merely because they lived here for a while? Doesn't "some years back" translate to "because they were Mexican citizens by birthright"?

The solution is obvious....lower domestic wages to a level at or below Mexican wages. This would also help our trade deficit immensely.

However, the problem has always been this...somebody has to go first. I suggest the employees of Goldman Sachs.

You know, the wider you make people's horizons while they are at university, the more benefits are going to accrue. And having people come over here and experience American culture, gain American friends and connections, is the best way to immunize the future from outbreaks of lashing out at America. Better trolls please.

repub: " This isn't a gushing wave of criminals flooding across the borders - it's a blip."

I didn't use the term gushing wave. Eric waved the wave.

I said it was a cumulative 8 year's of crimes that would have been significantly reduced if there were significantly fewer illegal immigrants in the US committing them. 18,135 Violent Crimes is not a blip. That's just the 8 year total in Arizona. The crime rates are higher here in California. And if you add them up nationally, they are significant.

You seem to be willing to rationalize away all those crimes committed by people who are here unlawfully because the percentages aren't higher. If 10% of iPhones start blowing up in people's ears you going to say it's only a statistical blip, and not be in favor of a total recall? How about if it's only 2%, or 1% -- you still on the forget-about-it it's only a blip bandwagon? And that's what Arizona wants to do, a reflection of the will of a strong majority of Americans: recall the illegals,

We bring in about a million legal immigrants a year, almost half of them from Mexico-- If you think it's in our national interest to allow more in each year, or to accord another amnesty for the 11-million who came here illegally after the last amnesty, organize a national referendum, and let the people vote on it. And if the majority votes to let them stay, the rule of law will have prevailed.

But until that happens Arizona has a moral obligation to protect its citizens from the crimes and misdemeanors of those people who are in this country illegally, even if they're only 1% of the total.

"And having people come over here and experience American culture, gain American friends and connections, is the best way to immunize the future from outbreaks of lashing out at America. Better trolls please."

Again, I repeat, we bring in a million legal immigrants a year, half of them from Mexico. You have to be dense dumb and blind not to see that.

Better thinking please.

repub: "Your comment that "But all Mexicans living in the US, no matter how long they've been here, were accorded Mexican citizenship by that government some years back" is even more bizarre."

Yes, that's a little jumbled.

What I was trying to say was all people born in Mexico, no matter how long they've lived here in the US, as Mexican citizens can go back to Mexico, and legally apply for college acceptance there. This is also true for 'anchor babies' born in the US, who under Mexican law can have duel citizenship in the US and Mexico, and can also return to Mexico for their education, or to live there full time if they wish. The same is true of any and all Mexicans born in Mexico who legally relocated here and have become American citizens (those who received the last amnesty for instance).

And all of those 'Americans' with duel citizenship can go back to Mexico, and can buy property (where non-Mexican Americans are forbidden to buy property), and open businesses (where non-Mexican American can't) and be hired for governmental jobs (non-Mexican Americans excluded) or join the military (no non-Mexican Americans need apply).

"Duel citizenship".

*snigger*

"Better thinking please."

That's only going to come about if one follows who is saying what to whom. I was speaking to Marty's comment (he's the one who restricted his countries of choice to ones that being with I) rather than address your racist screed. Do you really think that the children of illegal farmworkers and maids have enough money pay even in-state tuition? (U of Arizona $6540, Arizona State $7,793 excluding housing, board, textbooks) You also realize that migrant workers often can't establish residency, because they are 'migrant'. If you can squeeze a dictionary up where your head is, you might want to take a look at it. Look up 'duel' while you are at it. Or better yet, ask a desi kid. They might take pity on you.

I really hate this term, 'undocumented"; It's meant to suggest, (Without really saying so.) that we're dealing with people who just misplaced their wallet, or neglected to go through some trivial formality.

Why not call a bank robber an "undocumented customer" of the bank? A car thief an "undocumented car owner", because they're not in possession of a title?

The reason they don't have the documents is that they're here illegally. Taking something they're not legally entitled to: The benefits of being here.

Nobody calls somebody 'undocumented' unless they're trying to slip one past you.

organize a national referendum, and let the people vote on it.

That system has worked out great for California. Besides, isn't this the point where you're supposed to be frothing at the mouth with slurred speech about how, "we're a republic, not a democracy!" ?

What we have basically realized is that the Reoublucans are out and out lying when they try to claim that there is some kind of massive crime wave sparked by illegal immigration. For the most part, border stares are relatively low crime. Those who try to claim otherwise are simply trying to pull one over on you.

Mexican citizens can go back to Mexico, and legally apply for college acceptance there.

You are forgetting that according to Marty, they're coming to America to take advantage of the low, low in state tuition available at America's public universities!

Honestly, most of these students grew up here, went to school here, and have a relatively tenuous connection to their home countries and are just trying to finish college.

I really hate this term, 'undocumented

How nice for you. I'll get the fainting couch. It's similar to using the term "unlicensed driver."

No, it is not. It reduces the incentive to come here to get their kids a cheap education.

Marty, I take it I don't need to pile on and point out how this argument refutes itself, right?

At some point it comes down to a decision whether the laws should be enforced or not. They are illegally in the country, make it legal, or don't. Give everyone eternal amnesty or don't, but making illegal immigrants pay out of state tuition seems pretty reasonable as an admission policy.

It comes down to this: unless we punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants, then all else is more or less beside the point. If you're going to allow employers to continue hiring illegal immigrants, giving an irresistible incentive, then I would rather their children have medical care and attend universities. No sense in luring them here and then taking punitive measures against them and their children. That would be the worst of both worlds.

Now if you wanted to actually punish employers (you know, enforce the law!), then the other stuff would make at least a bit more sense as part of a comprehensive approach. As is, it is an incoherent and counterproductive approach.

Why not call a bank robber an "undocumented customer" of the bank? A car thief an "undocumented car owner", because they're not in possession of a title?

Yeah. Why not call someone operating a motor vehicle without a license an "unlicensed driver"? Or a worker (citizen) not on your payroll, "off the books"? Or why don't we describe someone pretending to be a doctor as "practicing medicine without a license"? Or "practicing law without a license"?

That would be crazy, right?

Eric,

You can pile on but...the facts are that if access to work, education and healthcare required documetation (all places I have to provide ID already), the incentives would be greatly reduced.

All of which is beside the point of this post or my response. The point was that if you can't prove you are a legal resident of the state, then you should pay out of state rates. I don't see that as being equivalent to the Arizona law in any way.

Marty,

Only equivalent in that it is not in response to a crime surge, or directed at same.

But as I said, if it was part of a comprehensive approach, it would make a bit more sense, although even then, I don't think punitive measures against kids trying to go to college (who likely had zero say in the decision to come to this country) is the right way to go, unless it was the last step in a sequence, but certainly not the first.

Maybe Hartmut can find us a link to the original German so as to better appreciate them

"I don't think punitive measures against kids trying to go to college"

So should poor out of state students get in state rates in general? Or should out of state rates be banned? I am really trying to understand the "punitive" nature of this requirement. Not to mention the whole set of assumptions you are making about the reason a college age child is in Georgia, which casts them as tragic victims of their parents crimes.

All that said, i agree it would be more effective if we had aa comprehebsive approach.

I'm surprised no one has linked to this

Marty: I am really trying to understand the "punitive" nature of this requirement.

Denying children access to college on the basis of who their parents are punishes:

1. The children themselves
2. The parents, who would doubtless rather have educated children
3. The future society the children live in, which would benefit from having more people better educated.

The only group that isn't punished is:

1. The employers who want more uneducated and unresourced workers who have no option but to take whatever jobs they can get at whatever rate of pay the employers will offer.

In short; the only people this doesn't punish are the people who are directly responsible for undocumented workers and who directly benefit from their presence.

How, exactly, is this helpful?

I come from a culture that values education as a good in itself, which causes me to struggle to understand your notion of education as reward/privilege to be withheld as a punishment.

Oh, and denying people healthcare because they're "illegal aliens" is beyond a joke. This is the US, of course, but... even so.

Maybe Hartmut can find us a link to the original German so as to better appreciate them
pre or post-1945? If the latter, East or West Germany?
Most neutral "Wirtschaftsflüchtling" (economic refugee). This includes both 'true' refugees and migrants. It says nothing per se about legal status but given the difficulty of getting a work permit, 'unauthorized' is often implied.
Always popular (although a bit oldfashioned): foreigners that take your bread away ('bread' is more powerful than 'jobs').
But I think the word meant but deliberately not used is 'Schmarotzer' (parasite) with an appropriate prefix like Sozial- (social or welfare) or Bildungs- (education/training). Many universities have no tuition fee making them attractive. But we are of course a totalitarian police state lacking basic human rights (no 2nd amendment and Coulter&Co would get into legal trouble in no time for disturbing the peace, calling for wars of aggression and genocide) where "papers please" is almost as old as paper itself. So, getting enrolled without valid student visa or other proof of legal status of residence could be difficult.

I might add that student visa become invalid almost instantly when studies get finished or aborted.

Hartmut, I was thinking 'Alle gastarbeiter raus!', though there is probably a spelling mistake or three in there.

Dear Marty, J.J., and Brett,

We are so sorry to have to break this to you via an internet comment on a blog, but events have come to the point that we cannot withhold the truth from the three of you any longer. You see, the six of us snuck into the United States together with the three of you when you were each three months old.

We were hoping for a better life in the United States that our home country couldn't provide. And provide the U.S. has! What wonderful opportunity the land of, er, opportunity has given you! But sadly, the Department of Homeland Security has been closing it's net around us ever tighter these past few months, and we are reliably informed that we are soon to be arrested and deported as illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately, when that happens, they will find that the three of you are also illegal immigrants and you will all surely be deported as well. We know you have no memories of our home country, and that a transition back there may be difficult, given the language, ethnic, and religious barriers, but we ask you not to despair!

The six of us all have wonderful memories of growing up in Kyrgyzstan before we left for the United States, and while things may be tough right now there for ethnic Uzbeks like yourselves, we're sure you will find a nice tent city to settle down in and make your lot in your new life.

Don't forget, we love you, and be sure to brush up on your Russian and Krygyz language skills!

Dear M, JJ and B's parents:

This is a great idea for a movie.

You could call it "Borat Goes Home"

Or, it could be like the Hope/Crosby road pictures.

Who gets to be Dorothy Lamour?

My wife came to the US on a student visa. She was required to have it on her person at all times. When she became a legal resident, she kept her green card with her drivers license. She's now a citizen but doesn't carry proof of citizenship.

I agree with Eric only in the limited sense that employers who employ illegal immigrants should be heavily sanctioned. As for enforcing existing law, why isn't that a universal consensus?

People who enter the country illegally and make a life here do so knowing they are subject to deportation. The alternative is to enter legally, a mechanism available to anyone even if it takes some time.

It is ridiculous to suggest that crime isn't crossing the border. We see it everyday in Texas. Cherry picking four cities in border states, only one of which is actually on the border is the kind of misleading advocacy that cheapens the entire pro-immigrant argument.

Further, the relevant statistic is what percentage of the population is illegally in the country accounts for what percentage of the overall crime rate. I don't have that number or the time to look it up, but annecdotally, illegal immigrants do bring with them--in the aggregate--a significant amount of crime.

All of that said, having represented, hired and associated with Mexicans here illegally for years, having watched (while hunting in south Texas) people lugging their only possessions on their back walking over some of the most inhospitable country in the state to take a job washing dishes, the vast majority are lovely people with a lot more in common with Brett and Marty than with Eric and Jes. Hardworking, conservative, kind and decent, the calculus of pluses and minuses is very difficult to work out. At present. In the out years, the situation is not so rosy.

First generation Mexicans and Central Americans know poverty and oppression at such a granular level that anything the US has to offer, no matter how menial, is a huge step up. Population growth south of the border coupled with no real change if not actual regression economically will continue to drive people north in large numbers.

The very, very vast majority of these people are not educated and have no cultural referents beyond the need for hard work just to put food on the table. Their offspring will not be raised in an environment that prizes education, ambition and advancement. Even third and fourth generation Mexican descendants have a depressingly low rate of college matriculation. It is a cultural phenomena in which the familial bonds are so strong--a plus in most ways, but not every way--that leaving home for school is viewed negatively. Familial pressures to stay close to home, to take whatever work allows that to happen, are strong. The documented result is the comparatively low rate of completing college.

As for second generation immigrants, will their children, less educated by far than their white, Asian and African American contemporaries, be satisfied with the entry level work their parents came to the US to find? I think not. Expectations will rise, but not the ability to achieve them. The downstream social costs of absorbing the next several generations, with an ongoing influx from the south, cannot be seen as anything positive.

The only solution that makes any kind of sense is a guest worker program. Give current illegals a year to register and then five years in the country to work. Then they go home to give others a chance to put together some money and take it home, hopefully there to build a better life and perhaps, in time, make their home countries better places to live.

We cannot continually absorb every person who desires a better life, no matter how good and decent each of those people probably are.

ROTFLMAO!

And, before one of them brings it up, any illegal immigrant who manages to get false papers will also have a great story prepared to give a false background to anyone who asks. Including their children (who, as children, cannot be counted upon not to let the cat out of the bag).

[Marty's] notion of education as reward/privilege to be withheld as a punishment.

It is also a remarkably cramped version of what education is. Marty imagines that you don't want an education that teaches people how to be aware of differences, to be challenged by the best, to know how their efforts measure up. What Marty would have would be a system that where you are automatically keeping out some of the best (because, population mechanics being what they are, I don't think he's got that balls to assert that braininess is the sole domain of the legal folks only) He seems to imagine education as simply training a bunch of like minded people to think the same way, rather than a way to bring in new ideas, new viewpoints, that often can't be found within a homogenous group. My current favorite example of this is this guy. It is hard to imagine the ingenious lo-tech equipment being used to make profound discoveries if you didn't come from another way of viewing things. Ironically, I imagine conservatives would be for 'conserving' these sorts of view point, viewing it as ultimately supporting their desire 'conserve'. But the venom that comes out when the talk about this (count the number of times JJ 'Johnson' spits out the word Mexico or Mexicans) shows what is really being conserved here.

So should poor out of state students get in state rates in general? Or should out of state rates be banned? I am really trying to understand the "punitive" nature of this requirement. Not to mention the whole set of assumptions you are making about the reason a college age child is in Georgia, which casts them as tragic victims of their parents crimes.

I'm not sure what you're asking, and what your confusion is.

If the kid is a resident of a given state, he/she should have access to in-state tuition breaks. This would not apply to residents out of state, but should apply even if the parents are in the country illegally.

The kids are not "tragic victims," just being punished with higher tuition, which is not a good thing since for many the difference can be a dealbreaker.

Not good. That is all.

It is ridiculous to suggest that crime isn't crossing the border.

Good thing I didn't suggest that then.

Further, the relevant statistic is what percentage of the population is illegally in the country accounts for what percentage of the overall crime rate. I don't have that number or the time to look it up, but annecdotally, illegal immigrants do bring with them--in the aggregate--a significant amount of crime.

This is actually not true, factually. Crime rates in the immigrant population run far below the domestic population, especially when you factor in socio-economic class, but even without doing so.

...people with a lot more in common with Brett and Marty than with Eric and Jes. Hardworking, conservative, kind and decent...

Huh? Are you suggesting that I don't work hard, or that I'm not kind or decent?

McTex, for the record, I not only bust my ass as a lawyer (and, due to years of hard work, will make partner come December), but I have a paying gig editing a foreign policy website, and then manage to do this, for free, on top.

I also coach (and play) for a competitive softball team, while raising a now 8 month old child.

While I might be tempted to say something intemperate in response to your not so kind or decent statement, because I am both kind and decent, I will ask you to clarify instead.

As for second generation immigrants, will their children, less educated by far than their white, Asian and African American contemporaries, be satisfied with the entry level work their parents came to the US to find? I think not.

Do you have stats to back that up, or is that another "anecdotal" assertion?

. . . the vast majority are lovely people with a lot more in common with Brett and Marty than with Eric and Jes. Hardworking, conservative, kind and decent, the calculus of pluses and minuses is very difficult to work out. At present.

Uh . . . aside from "conservative," which of your adjectives here fails to describe Eric or Jes, but includes Marty and Brett? Brett Bellmore is a lot of things, but "kind and decent" isn't any of them.

All of that said, having represented, hired and associated with Mexicans here illegally for years . . .

Uh . . . aren't you a lawyer?

I have no hesitation in being intemperate.

the vast majority are lovely people with a lot more in common with Brett and Marty than with Eric and Jes. Hardworking, conservative, kind and decent, the calculus of pluses and minuses is very difficult to work out.

“Brett” and “Marty” and “Eric” and “Jes” are cyberfigments. We know almost nothing of how we’d react to them if we met them in person. I have met five other ObWians in Boston for dinner several times. They are all wonderful, fun, interesting, kind, decent, lovely people (no, mostly not conservative, and I have no personal evidence of hardworking but based on what I know of their educational attainments and their working lives, they can hardly be anything but) but not one of them is much like what I imagined from their handles and their comments.

So I suggest that McKinneyTexas is filling in the 98% of what we don't know about “Brett” and “Marty” and “Eric” and “Jes” from his own imagination, and then, unless the comment came across very differently from the way it was actually meant, saying nastily that Brett and Marty share a lot of wonderful qualities with immigrants McK has known (decent, lovely, hardworking, etc.) and Eric and Jes don't. If McK means a lot more political opinions in common he may have a thin leg to stand on, but beyond that, he’s making it up. And making it up in a singularly nasty way, too.

From where I sit, Brett and especially Marty are most of the time among the most unpleasant and (in Marty's case) dishonest people I have ever had the bad luck to encounter. Their political opinions pale in importance in comparison to the general attitude of curmudgeonly nastiness they bring here.

To suggest that because some people writing on the internet seem in cyberspace to share some political opinions with some other people, they are “more like them” is sheer fantasy. People are a lot more than their f*cking political opinions.

Bye.

J.J., would you mind sticking to one style of pseudonym? It makes it a touch more difficult to keep you in my pie filter when you go changing it around, and judging by what I've seen in this thread you still belong there.

Uh, what I meant was that Brett and Marty--and me, for that matter--tend toward socially conservative, traditional values. This is in line with the vast majority of Mexicans I've come across.

Yes, Phil, I am a lawyer. Also, perhaps a hypocrite since I believe our laws should be enforced and our borders handled in the same way Mexico and every other country I've visited handles theirs. Yet, when it gets down to the person-to-person contact, I know every Mexican I meet who is looking for work starts from a lot farther back in the race than pretty much anyone else, so it's damned difficult not to extend a hand. If I am prosecuted for that, fine. I can hire a good lawyer.

I can hire a good lawyer

Just not yourself ;) OK, I earned the right to that joke.

Uh, what I meant was that Brett and Marty--and me, for that matter--tend toward socially conservative, traditional values.

May I suggest, counselor, a bit more care in drafting the language, as your syntax did not make such a distinction.

What JanieM said.

But the point about Mexican American achievement is too mendacious to let stand, so when the proud Anglo McKinneyTexas opines:
It is a cultural phenomena in which the familial bonds are so strong--a plus in most ways, but not every way--that leaving home for school is viewed negatively. Familial pressures to stay close to home, to take whatever work allows that to happen, are strong. The documented result is the comparatively low rate of completing college.

In McKinneyTexas' rush to say 'it's not that I'm racist, it's that their family bonds are too tight', he misses (or chooses to overlook) the education research that suggests that when Mexican Americans are taught in a manner more resembling their own culture and less in the standard IRE (Initiation-Response-Evaluation) style, their success rate climbs. And the insight that IRE style may not be the best way is one that has moved into work with learning disabled.

Of course, if McKinneyTexas' little Johnny happens to have a learning disability, and an understanding of how changes in classroom interaction make a significant difference in little Johnny's success, I have this strange feeling that dusky Juan whose grandparents are from Jalisco is not going to receive any thanks, unless the little Christmas bonus in the maid and gardner's off the book payment counts. As Flem Snopes said 'A little sweetening for the chaps'.

Losey's Listen to the Silences has a good overview of the research on how a wide range of strictures serve to limit and reduce the achievement of Mexican Americans.

Yes, I really did drop the ball by implying that Jes and Eric and everyone else here at ObWi don't work hard, aren't good folks, etc. What I meant to say was what I tried to correct above. My apologies. Really. I wouldn't hang out here if I didn't like and respect pretty much everyone here. JanieM in particular. Damn.

Eric, I daily marvel at your prodigious output. I have no idea how you do it.

As for the stats, I should have saved the article by a UT sociology prof that came out a couple of weeks ago. The numbers were pretty remarkable and I remember thinking at the time I should save it for just something like this. I am not making this up.

Hartmut, I was thinking 'Alle gastarbeiter raus!', though there is probably a spelling mistake or three in there.

Gastarbeiter are the legal aliens. The ones that for the most part shamelessly stayed here instead of going back to their countries when their work was done and are under the illusion that working their asses off for decades in jobs Germans thought themselves too fine for entitled them to anything. Just like those ungrateful Chinese coolies that built the US railways.

One thing I note is that the kids in question actually do reside in GA. FWIW.

People are going to come here if they think that, even in spite of whatever hurdles we throw in front of them, their lives will be better than they are at home.

By far most of these people come here to work, and they work freaking hard. I see them every day. They work more than one job, they are working when I leave for my job in the morning, and they are working when I leave my job to come back home in the evening.

We pretend we hate them but we also like cheap vegetables. We like our restaurant tables bussed, we like our lawns mowed and our flower beds mulched, we like our office buildings and hotel rooms clean and neat, and we don't want to pay a lot for it.

My druthers would be to just let them come here legally. I don't understand why we don't do that.

In the meantime, we'll just keep making it more and more difficult and unpleasant for them to be here, and they'll come anyway.

We'll be having this same argument five years from now.

Yes, and I wonder how the German World Cup squad would have done without Ozil...

MCT, much earlier: The alternative is to enter legally, a mechanism available to anyone even if it takes some time.

I just wanted to correct this - for a lot of people it is not possible to immigrate to the US legally no matter how long they waited. Take a look at the list of immigration visa types and you'll see that the categories are very restrictive. For temporary work visas there are fewer restrictions but those visas don't grant permanent resident status. There is the green card lottery, but many citizens of many countries (including Mexico) are barred from participating because they already send a lot of immigrants.

Just clarifying because I think it's a common belief that anybody can immigrate if they just wait long enough, but it's not actually true.

The only solution that makes any kind of sense is a guest worker program.

To my eye, a guest worker program just legitimizes the use of immigrant labor to keep payrolls low.

Just let them freaking move here if they want to move here. As McK notes, they are hardworking, family-oriented, decent people. We should welcome them.

My two cents.

Ignoring standard (and reasonably tiresome)name calling by others....

Jes.

The law does not deny an education to anyone, it does not preclude them from going to college. It denies them an in-state tuition rate (at state universities) if they are not legal residents of the state. They pay the same rates over 90% of the US population would have to pay.

LJ,

I certainly don't share any of the views of education you attribute to me, exactly where did you get that information?

Uh, what I meant was that Brett and Marty--and me, for that matter--tend toward socially conservative, traditional values.

For the record, and with respect, I'd like to note that in the world of social values there is more than one tradition, and more than one tradition with very deep roots, in this country and elsewhere.

Given that context, the word "socially conservative" cuts more than one way.

I think what you're trying to say is that many Mexicans hold social values that more likely resemble yours or Marty's than Eric's or Janie's. In other words, I don't think you intend to make a value judgement, just an observation of fact.

In either case, the statement on its face may be less true than you think.

...people with a lot more in common with Brett and Marty than with Eric and Jes. Hardworking, conservative, kind and decent...

I was about to say something unkind and indecent and then I saw McKTex had already retracted it. Okay.

Look, the thing about making sure all resident children in a country get the best education they're capable of getting, is a cultural quirk of the region of the UK I identify as "my country" - but it's also the reason why, as Scots are bullishly proud of noting, we have vastly more influence on the world than we should given the size of our nation. Because as a country, Scotland has supported free public education for all for about three hundred years. Not dependent on how rich or how aristocratic - or how white! - your family was. Just dependent (on gender, admittedly, for getting into university) on how smart and how hard-working you were.

Now the big disadvantage of that system for any conservative is that it pretty much ensures that a lot of very smart very hard-working very poor kids are going to do much better than their parents did, and their kids will do better too.

A conservative who's happy to have illegal workers laboring for tiny wages and wants their children to have no option but to struggle along the same way as their parents did, will be against college education for the children of illegals the same way a white plantation owner was against the Emancipation Proclamation and the same way the white plantation owner's grandchildren were against the Little Rock Nine. And for the same reason.

Opposing access to college for the children of your illegal workers certainly makes you conservative. Doesn't make you kind or decent. And I'm glad my traditional values are so utterly different from McKinney's.

Jacob,

The immigration laws are absurd at several levels. Guest workers are taken advantage of, primarily by the companiess that sponsor them. H1B's are limited to a trickle that denies people that would be incredibly valuable for our society. The illegal immigration allows a small subset of undeirables to coexist with incredibly hard working and valuable members of society in a shared shadow world where they protect each other despite the clear differences.

It is stupid policy.

Лучшие пассажирские перевозки групп по Украине

What Andrej said.

A little hard work never hurt anyone.

Which is why Americans do as little hard work as possible and outsource the hurt that results from alot of hard work to underpaid illegals.

I'm thinking, however, that we need to keep the illegals coming until the Census is done and we can finish building those concentration camps to house Michelle Bachmann and other assorted undesirables.

I may be kind and decent, but above all I want to bring in those taxpayer-financed projects below estimates.

We don't want Michelle complaining that her taxdollars are going to waste.

"We like our restaurant tables bussed" and "we like our office buildings and hotel rooms clean and neat."

Well, the snobby elites like it that way and then impose their values on the rest of us through excessive regulation.

I resent that an unelected bureaucrat makes the restaurant on the corner wash their dishes between customers. You could just scrape the leftovers off out back to mulch the tree of liberty and then use the plates over again unwashed.

Cheaper, and who's the wiser?

what I meant was that Brett and Marty--and me, for that matter--tend toward socially conservative, traditional values.

I don't get that impression at all from Brett or Marty. Brett is a reactionary right wingers who dresses himself up as a libertarian. Marty likes to play up the annoying douchenozzle persona. You can only speak for yourself, so I take you at your word.

I actually have a rather more conservative, restrictive perspective on immigration, but I do feel that these sort of punative measures against otherwise law abiding residents, especially with dishonest propaganda about how they are some kind of public safety threat, is wrong and gives lie to the claims of "traditional moral conservative values" that right wingers claim to have. If it's all about supporting traditional values, why is it being accompanied with a campaign if lies, dishonesty, and hateful hysteria? Could it be that the forces behind demands for these punative measures and "papers please!" demands are rooted in a movement of people who are essentially immoral human beings? I think that may well be the case, and enpowering those immoral elements within the body politic is a danger we should avoid.

In other words, I don't think you intend to make a value judgement, just an observation of fact.

Exactly, in the sense that I try very hard not to make value judgments about anyone here or anywhere else. I try, perhaps not always successfully, to stay on the merits of an argument, and not get personal. I feel badly about creating this sideshow.

What I don't mean to imply is that your or JanieM's or Erics value system is wrong, bad etc. I used the phrase 'socially conservative' because I associate it with, well, social conservatives. I am not even sure that being socially conservative, as I intend it to mean, is always a good thing, gay marriage being but one example.

I guess the point I was trying (and I am well aware that I'm overusing the word 'try') to say was that the Mexicans I've known, citizens, illegals, residents, etc. all tend be more alike in their outlooks than many of the people who would deny them entry into the country. It's an anomaly.

LJ--spent much time in South Texas? Have many friends down there? I have and I do. My wife came to the US on a Venezuelan passport. She grew up primarily in Argentina and Venezuela, although her parents are European. Technically, our children are hispanic. The article to which I referred identifies a very clear cultural bent, one that is largely positive but not entirely due to its limiting effect, particularly on young women.

MKT, just a small question: since you are big on "conservative social values" why aren't you more enthused by all those Mexican (and other South and Central American) immigrants -- whether legal or illegal?

After all, their family values are far, far closer to your description than they are to the average liberal Democrat. The only thing pushing them away is the xenophobia exhibited by the more vocal conservatives in the US. I could see an argument for pushing law enforcement, on both illegal immigrants and those who hire them equally. But one based on conservative social values? Not so much. What am I missing here?

Yes, we liberal types hates our families.

On the other hand, we like everyone else's families so much that we want them to have access to affordable healthcare, at our tax expense.

Such conflicted values.

I used the phrase 'socially conservative' because I associate it with, well, social conservatives. I am not even sure that being socially conservative, as I intend it to mean, is always a good thing

McK, I appreciate the thoughtful reply.

Not directed at your comments here, just as an aside: I would love to rescue the words "conservative" and "traditional" from their current enslavement as shibboleths for privilege.

There are lots of traditions.

Russell, and the same for "liberal" and "progressive", for that matter. I use labels as a shorthand and write as if others can see my face and know the inflection of my mind, never thinking that what seems reasonable when I hit "post" comes across in a wholly unintended manner.

Tyro: Please abide by the poting rules. Personal attacks on Marty like that are not appreciated or permitted.

I certainly don't share any of the views of education you attribute to me, exactly where did you get that information?

Marty, if you view education as some sort of 'reward' (Jes' word, not yours, but it certainly seems implicit in everything you have said so far) you have a cramped view of education. And if you think that shutting out the children of illegal immigrants from the university system is appropriate, it is a logical conclusion.

LJ--spent much time in South Texas?

McK, What does that have to do with anything? I pointed out that your assertion that Mexican family structure contributes to their poor success rate is not a knock out argument for not allowing Mexicans to integrate, but instead an opportunity to examine how we structure interactions within the education system and consider a restructuring of those interactions that could yield (and in some cases already has yielded) remarkable benefits. But somehow, your wife being Venezuelan immunizes you from the inability to look beyond your own prejudices. I'm sure that you are filled with warmth when you look at the extended families of the Mexicans, even apparently going as far as employing them and flaunting the law (don't tell Brett!), but that you take something that you identify as a social good as a 'well, too bad for them' suggests that you making value judgements without even being aware of it. You 'created this sideshow' as you said because you instinctively jumped in on the side of Brett, Jay and Marty. It is a nice illustration of tribalism, but it doesn't reflect well on you.

I thought I posted this once already, but...:

I'd like to switch gears a bit and get back to the crime question.

What is it about these laws that better enables Arizona and Georgia to find the illegals who commit crimes as opposed to the ones who don't? And what is it about these laws that better keeps the ones who do commit crimes from coming back after they're deported?

I only ask because I don't see how more or less randomly throwing illegals out of the country will do much to reduce crime. And I really don't see how raising tuition rates will do that.

OT - Um, Brazil? Helloooooooooo? Nil-nil at the half vs. North Korea? Kaka, indeed.

Just let them freaking move here if they want to move here. As McK notes, they are hardworking, family-oriented, decent people. We should welcome them.

It's been said a lot, but it bears repeating: russell, you are such a welcome voice on this blog. Thullen brings the funny, and russell brings the sane and the human. A winning combination.

spent much time in South Texas?

I've spent most of the last 23 years in New York City, thank you very much. It's far from perfect, but somehow my adopted hometown manages to welcome a constant influx people from all over the world (even Mexico!) with barely a hint of the xenophobia, demagoguery and hysteria found in places like AZ, TX, or southern California. Are they all duly "documented"? I highly doubt it. And yet russell's attitude seems far more prevalent around here than that of the conservatives in this thread. Why is that?

"Marty, if you view education as some sort of 'reward' (Jes' word, not yours, but it certainly seems implicit in everything you have said so far) "

LJ,

I don't see it as a reward, nothing I said implies that. It is clear to me that Georgia has the right to charge out of state tuition for people who are not legal residents of Georgia. Just like every other state.

The fact that they are going to demand proof of legal residence in assessing fees doesn't imply any of the other sins discussed here to me.

No one is being denied access to education here.

hsh,

The high crime rate argument is probably valid in very specific spots, but it certainly hasn't gotten worse and random deportation doesn't solve the problem. Like most problems the politicians can only do what is in their span of control to address it in pieces until there is an actual coherent, comprehensive policy solution. Until then the piecemeal approaches will be driven by local and state politics.

Thanks Eric.

OT - Um, Brazil? Helloooooooooo? Nil-nil at the half vs. North Korea? Kaka, indeed.

Thanks Ugh. Now I know to fast forward to halftime of my DVR'd coverage.

But, uh, could you keep the spontaneous updates to a minimum going forward?

I've spent most of the last 23 years in New York City, thank you very much.

You should join Von and I for a drink later this month. I'll post something on the front page when Von gives us some actionable intel on the dates.

Thanks Ugh. Now I know to fast forward to halftime of my DVR'd coverage.

But, uh, could you keep the spontaneous updates to a minimum going forward?

Whoops, didn't think about that, my bad. But really, I thought the lack of scoring in soccer wasn't a bad thing? If I told you it was 4-4 would you skip it? And is it my fault you know what "nil" means? I don't think so!

More seriously, sorry about that, I on't be posting any world cup updates unless there is a specific world cup thread.

liberaljaponicus: "If you can squeeze a dictionary up where your head is, you might want to take a look at it. Look up 'duel' while you are at it"

As mentioned last time I was posting here, I'm slightly dyslexic, and prone to make spelling mistakes... And there are studies showing that people with normal minds can easily understand the meaning of words and sentences even if they are massively misspelled. Therefore I can only assume you have some kind of mental defect not to have understood the meaning of the misspelled word, or more likely, you're the kind of elitist juvenile hollow-head who is more interested in gleefully pointing out spelling aberrations then confronting the flaws of your positions under discussion --

"rather than address your racist screed"

I don't have a racist screed -- I have an excess of illegals screed, the preponderance of whom are Mexicans. If Mexico and Canada exchanged places on the map, with Canada south of the our border, and the Canadians had mismanaged their nation's resources and economies as badly as the Mexicans have, so that Canadians were coming here illegally day after day, year after year, you'd hear the same outcries and objections directed at illegal Canadians. But I'm sure jerks like you would find some other pejorative to describe Americans who wanted the border secured.

Therefore I can only assume you have some kind of mental defect

you're the kind of elitist juvenile hollow-head

jerks like you

That's our Jay, making friends!

Eric: "This is actually not true, factually. Crime rates in the immigrant population run far below the domestic population, especially when you factor in socio-economic class, but even without doing so."

You're factually mistaken when it comes Hispanics:

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=104
"Sharp growth in illegal immigration and increased enforcement of immigration laws have altered the ethnic composition of offenders sentenced in federal courts. In 2007, Latinos accounted for 40% of all sentenced federal offenders-more than triple their share (13%) of the total U.S. adult population. The share of all sentenced offenders who were Latino in 2007 was up from 24% in 1991, according to an analysis of data from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. Moreover, by 2007, immigration offenses represented nearly one-quarter (24%) of all federal convictions, up from just 7% in 1991."

And if you want additional confirmation at the State level, you can look here, at crimes committed by Hispanics in Arizona, which indicates that they're about 30% of the population but commit about 40% of the violent crimes.

re: Eric asking this:
"Do you have stats to back that up, or is that another "anecdotal" assertion?"

About this:

"As for second generation immigrants, will their children, less educated by far than their white, Asian and African American contemporaries, be satisfied with the entry level work their parents came to the US to find?

There's THIS

"Just one-in-ten Hispanic high school drop-outs has a General Educational Development (GED) credential, widely regarded as the best "second chance" pathway to college, vocational training and military service for adults who do not graduate high school. By contrast, two-in-ten black high school drop-outs and three-in-ten white high school drop-outs has a GED, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of newly-available educational attainment data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey."


Hispanic/Latino != illegal immigrant

This seems fairly elementary.

russell: "That's our Jay, making friends!"

Back in your old double standard mode, huh -- or doesn't the fact that he and other keep calling me a racist enter into your calculations of who should be chided or not...

I wonder what the crime stats were for Irish, French Canadians, or Italians back in the days of massive -- and largely uncontrolled -- immigration. Maybe we should have kept them out as "undesirables". Too late now, of course, since "we" are now them to a large extent.

I say we ought to worry more about keeping out the big criminals. The ones that can rob millions of people at a time. The ones that tend to have last names like Inc and Corp.

Seriously: I'd like to hear some of the conservatives around here explain why "capital" should be free to move across national borders, but people shouldn't.

--TP


The fact that you're apparently conflating all Latinos with illegal immigrants doesn't help with the accusations of racism, Jay.

And your link is only for federal offenders, so doesn't include state or local courts, where hispanics make up a much smaller percentage. Why is that? Maybe because federal courts include immigration courts? From your own link:

Among all Hispanics sentenced in federal courts in 2007, 48% were sentenced for immigration offenses, 37% for drug offenses and 15% for other offenses.
Of Latino offenders who did not hold U.S. citizenship, more than six-in-ten (61%) were sentenced for immigration offenses, 30% for drug offenses and 9% for all other offenses.
More than eight-in-ten (81%) non-citizen Hispanic immigration offenders in 2007 were sentenced for entering the U.S. unlawfully or residing in the country without authorization.

So sure, there's an illegal immigrant crime wave if you include the act of illegal immigration in your definition of crime, but that seems a bit circular to me.

Back in your old double standard mode, huh

Yeah, that's me.

But actually, in LJ's comment "racist" modifies "screed", not "JJ". Just saying.

And his comment was in reply to your "better thinking please".

Which, in turn, followed this non-factoid from you:

Again, I repeat, we bring in a million legal immigrants a year, half of them from Mexico.

In 2006, as an example, a little over 1.2M immigrants were naturalized, of whom not quite 175K were Mexican.

Oh yeah, cite.

US immigration policy does not favor immigration of poor people from this hemisphere who don't have much education or immediate family already living here legally. It's not that easy for Mexicans or folks from other Hispanic countries to enter the US legally.

I have to wonder how Arizona's crime statistics look if you control for socioeconomic status when comparing ethnic groups. I also have to wonder how well illegals get counted and how that affects what percentage of the population is said to be hispanic in a place like Arizona. Somehow, I doubt the crime stats and the population stats are comparable with regard to how hispanics are counted. I also wonder how the (non-immigration-related) crime rate among hispanics in general correlates to that of hispanics who are here illegally. Unless the proposal is to simply get rid of ethnic groups (somehow) based on crime rates, as opposed to illegals, one would need to know that. I'm glad I'm not making the argument that illegal immigrants are responsible for a significantly disproportionate amount of crime in Arizona, because it would be a lot of work to look all that stuff up.

re World Cup games, even if you are watching, you have to have the Guardian minute by minute page up. Here is the Brazil-North Korea match page.

"US immigration policy does not favor immigration of poor people from this hemisphere who don't have much education or immediate family already living here legally."

On the contrary, that's exactly the sort of people our immigration policy favors. Which is why the federal government is down on Arizona's law. It just doesn't do so openly. The laws say one thing, the policy is almost the exact opposite.

Me, a 'social conservative'? That's funny: I'm in favor of a negative right to abort up to the point of viability, which means over the course of most of pregnancy. I'm in favor of drug legalization to the point where I'd let adults drill a hole in the top of their head and pour in battery acid, if that's what they want. (This makes me more of a social liberal than our host, if you hadn't noticed.) I'm a free speech absolutist to the point that I think blackmail ought to be legal.

You've got me pegged as a social 'conservative' because I think we can't afford to have open borders AND a welfare state, because I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and because I won't embrace a pro-choice position so extreme it's rejected by the vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of Americans, and is http://www.astra.org.pl/abortion.pdf>contrary to the law of almost all those 'socially advanced' European democracies you guys admire. (Check out those gestational limits.)

OT but in the thread,

Eric,

Congratulations on the impending partnership, I know the route to it is incredibly difficult.

On the contrary, that's exactly the sort of people our immigration policy favors. Which is why the federal government is down on Arizona's law. It just doesn't do so openly. The laws say one thing, the policy is almost the exact opposite.

The de facto vs de jure issue is an interesting one, but for the record the stated policy of the US is that priority is given to:

1. People who have immediate family here
2. People who have skills we want
3. Refugees from political, racial, or religious persecution
4. People who are demographically underrepresented here

"People who have skills we want" does include some unskilled labor, but it's not the highest priority criterion.

Net/net, cheap labor does not represent the majority of legal immigration.

Deference could be shown to the citizens of Arizona or Georgia, and other states as well, to deal with their troublesome issues in manners of their choosing. And they should be able to do this without being called bigots or racists.

"Seriously: I'd like to hear some of the conservatives around here explain why 'capital' should be free to move across national borders, but people shouldn't."

Well, actually the explanation is quite straightforward. Most conservatives don't really believe in, much less know, free market economic theory.

GoodOleBoy is apparently transcribing some classic rhetoric from the ante-bellum South (ca. 1860, perhaps):

Deference could be shown to the citizens of Arizona or Georgia, and other states as well, to deal with their troublesome issues in manners of their choosing. And they should be able to do this without being called bigots or racists.

Except that there was no state called "Arizona" then. Perhaps a misreading of "Alabama"?

But otherwise, a useful reminder of how little has changed in the last 150 years.

Deference could be shown to the citizens of Arizona or Georgia, and other states as well, to deal with their troublesome issues in manners of their choosing. And they should be able to do this without being called bigots or racists.

Why?

What if the "manner of their choosing" sucks?

And what makes the "troublesome issues" of freaking Georgia any better or worse than what folks deal with in any other part of the country?

You could sell me on AZ's problems being somewhat unique, but I'm not buying GA. Is there some kind of border between Mexico and Georgia that we never knew about before?

And I hate to break it to you GOB, but some people actually are bigots and racists.

I know that Russell, and for the others, we are not yet one world government. Actually, most of you likely have some uniquely local issues that you could direct your efforts toward instead of always assuming you have the solution to someone else's problems. Let them work on theirs and you work on yours.

Hey, I heard that before, mind your own business.

""Seriously: I'd like to hear some of the conservatives around here explain why 'capital' should be free to move across national borders, but people shouldn't."

It's not that complicated, and I have explained it before: A country with high levels of taxation and redistribution is in many ways similar to a gated community with high rent and amenities. Such a country next to a third world country with an ongoing civil war is similar to that gated community next to a slum with a gang problem.

Take a look at those liberal welfare states over in Europe that you think the US should be more like: Any of them have open borders to states even vaguely like Mexico? No, and for good reason.

Libertarians are, as a matter of principle, in favor of open borders. Libertarians are also, as a matter of principle, in favor of a night-watchman state that doesn't redistribute. These two positions aren't independent. They have to go together, and the order in which you implement them is important.

You want your welfare state, your redistribution? Then we can't afford open borders, it's as simple as that.

Take a look at those liberal welfare states over in Europe that you think the US should be more like: Any of them have open borders to states even vaguely like Mexico?

Yes, all of them.

If by "states even vaguely like Mexico" in terms of unemployment and poverty, child mortality, etc, you mean EU countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia.

(Actually, on several measures including child mortality, Mexico does better than Poland or Bulgaria or Estonia.)

Is this another of those "If Stephen Hawking had been British he'd be dead by now?" moments of ignorance?

Or is it just that while these Eastern European countries are certainly poverty-stricken, they're also overwhelmingly inhabited by white people?

Let them work on theirs and you work on yours.

GOB, immigration and naturalization are not particularly local issues.

To be honest, I personally don't really care if GA considers illegals non-residents for purposes of charging in-state tuition or not. As far as I'm concerned, *as regards that specific issue*, it's their state university system, they can run it however they want.

Other states and other cases, not quite the same situation.

Regulating immigration and naturalization is one of the powers reserved to the US Congress in Article II section 8. Defense and control of national borders is likewise a naturally federal responsibility. And the problem of illegal immigration is not one that falls uniquely on the shoulders of border states.

It's not a local issue, and it's not an issue that properly belongs to each state to sort out as it will.

Admittedly the new members of the EU are still a bit restricted, i.e. their citizens do not (yet) possess all privileges EU membership bestows on the old ones. One reason is that they do not guard their borders to non-EU states as thoroughly. What we are talking here would be more comparable to some US states denying citizens of other US states free movement. That seems to be the direction Arizona&Co are going.
Europe has its mad dogs too like that Italian minister openly talking about using the navy to sink refugee boats approaching the coast (with high publicity) in order to deter others (Imagine Israel to not just have boarded the Gaza flotilla but have it torpedoed, bombed, shelled, and survivors machine-gunned all before running TV cameras).

Besides, Arizona is a net recipient of federal tax dollars. When it can pay its own way in the world, it can make its own decisions.

In response to JJ's spurious stats, I defer to Larv.

I mean, if I live in a town, and 100 illegal immigrants come in to do menial labor, and none of them otherwise breaks the law, I would not call that a spike in crime. And if I did, it would intellectually dishonest to say the least.

Further, neither Latino nor Hispanic is synonymous with "illegal immigrant." Please fix.

And they should be able to do this without being called bigots or racists.

Really? You don't believe in free speech? I think I should be able to call people racists and bigots without someone telling me I can't. Then again, I think someone should be allowed to tell me I can't, so long as I still can. Of course, I should be allowed to say that no one can tell me I can't, so long as they still can tell me I can't, so long as I still can. (See where this baloney about what people can and can't say about what other people do gets you?)


Hey, I heard that before, mind your own business.

I hope hispanics in Arizona can use that when the cops ask for their papers.

'And they should be able to do this without being called bigots or racists.

Really? You don't believe in free speech? I think I should be able to call people racists and bigots without someone telling me I can't. Then again, I think someone should be allowed to tell me I can't, so long as I still can. Of course, I should be allowed to say that no one can tell me I can't, so long as they still can tell me I can't, so long as I still can. (See where this baloney about what people can and can't say about what other people do gets you?)'

Let's try to raise the credibility of the discussion a bit. My point was that the citizens of individual states are the appropriate source for governing their jurisdiction. Just because they approach that differently than how someone else 'feels' they should does not make them racists or bigots. My statement is not an attack on your free speech but an attempt to direct you away from name-calling and get some 'thinking' into the discussion.

And for the record, is it wrong for states to enforce federal law?

My statement is not an attack on your free speech but an attempt to direct you away from name-calling and get some 'thinking' into the discussion.

Then you should explain why the policies under discussion can't be seen as being motivated at least in part by racism and bigotry, rather than making a blanket statement that they simply shouldn't be.

And for the record, is it wrong for states to enforce federal law?

Not necessarily, but the reasons given for a new state-level enforcement regime, not to mention the timing and methods thereof, should be able to stand up to criticism, like those of all other local, state and federal laws and policies, of course. Maybe it would be more effective to address the specific criticisms rather than making another implied blanket statement by way of presenting a general question.

My point was that the citizens of individual states are the appropriate source for governing their jurisdiction.

This is wrong. US states aren't sovereign and therefore their citizens aren't the ones who decide how the states are governed. They're limited by federal law and the constitution.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad