What the hell is wrong with AZ?
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9023) 11 years ago
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11533) 10 years ago
IF they couldn't find jobs, sell drugs or buy guns north of the border, they wouldn't bother to come. However, they can find jobs, sell drugs and buy guns so they come. If we on the northern side stopped hiring them, buying their drugs and selling them guns, they would go away.

But that would require US to do something and we do not like to change OUR ways.

The United States is the attractive nuisance. We are much as fault as Mexico because we hire, we buy and we sell.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6171) 10 years ago
As far as state law vs. federal law, the states can do pretty much what they want as long as it doesn't violate federal statutes or the Constitution, assuming it also doesn't violate the state's own constitution. In fact, some states even pass laws that conflict with federal laws but nothing comes of it unless someone complains. For example, California has made it legal to purchase and use marijuana for medical purposes. As far as the feds are concerned this is still illegal and you could certainly be arrested by federal agents if they desired to. As far as I know it's never happened but I suppose it will and then the case will eventually go up to the Supreme Court.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6171) 10 years ago
I'm still waiting for someone to list all those benefits illegals get but citizens can't.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5099) 10 years ago
Wendy:

They get an "illegal immigrant" discount at several of the local taco trucks.

That's all I've got.
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+296) 10 years ago
Actually, I don't think folks are 'suddenly concerned' about illegal immigrants...there has been an issue with illegal border crossings for many years. We've even had the Marines down there helping to secure the border, and that was going on 10-15 years ago.

And honestly, you should reconsider labeling those you refer to 'teabaggers' as racist. I believe in reducing taxes and putting more people to work, less people on welfare. I'm a conservative, vote for the Republican candidate more often than the Democratic candidate because their their philosphy is more in line with mine. As to me being racist...I think you could ask many of the people who I have worked with or have worked for me who are minorities, I have treated everyone similarly, no matter what their background. I married a Native American lady from the Crow tribe (we'll be married 35 years this September), I've spent countless hours and much effort working to help folks from various reservations get a chance to achieve something in their life, and still do in my present job.

I spent months at time over four years in Africa as my for-profit company (managed by Christian Conservatives, what you would call 'Teabaggers') spent a LOT of its own money, with no though of profit putting a version of our pharmacy program in hospitals and clinics. We bought the computers in country (Uganda), hired people to help install them, trained the doctors and nurses, put infrastructure in place for emergency power, built shelters, etc. I traveled to places that were quite dangerous, attacks by rebels (really thugs) were routine, and are still going on.

Labeling all of us who have an opinion different than yours as 'racists', 'teabaggers', etc. isn't accurate, and doesn't help make your point.

And there are many who claim to be conservative, but are really fringe, who have similar issues. They need to get a clue.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9023) 10 years ago
Do you support the "Tea Party"? If so, then you're a teabagger. I'm sorry if some of your fellow travelers have made signs and said things that might imply that their principled opposition to all the poop that George Bush set in motion might have something to do with the amount of melatonin in the President's skin than with any actual policies that he's pursuing, but really, that's not my problem. I'd have more sympathy for you if you'd turned on Bush before he shat the bed, instead of spending all your time and energy bitching about the person with the unenviable task of A) cleaning up the fiscal mess that YOUR party created and B) figuring out how to get Ben Nelson and Max Baucus to spit the corporate redacted out of their mouths and do something useful with those senate seats for a change.

And yes - this thread was about racism, because some racist teabag supporting mouthbreather with a radio show and too much time on his hands decided that having to look at a mural with black kids on it was just too ethnic for his delicate constitution.

Bah.
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+296) 10 years ago
Bridgier,
I'm not going to go on the defensive about this, from your statements, you clearly didn't read about MY party affiliations. I don't have connection with the radio host you speak of either. He's not my fellow traveler, as I don't know him or enough of what he represents to relate to him.

As far as the current fiscal mess. I believe George Bush (again, check my statement about MY party affiliation, or lack thereof) has some culpability, but also believe the Senate and House had a major role in it, don't you?
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9981) 10 years ago
Although I hated the American Government class I was forced to take in high school, it is not very hard to figure out there are three branches -- legislative, executive and judicial.

1. The legislative branch (e.g. the Houses of Congress) proposes bills.

2. The executive branch (e.g. the Commander in Chief of the Military, or in other words our President) can choose to sign bills into law, or not.

3. The judicial branch (e.g. the Supreme Court) can determine if a law is constitutional or not, and strike it down or uphold it if they desire.

It's all part of the system of checks and balances.

No president is forced to sign any bill into law that congress throws upon their desk (although I do believe there should probably be some sort of executive line-item veto option).

In any case, if enough of the populous in congress disagrees with a veto, they can override whatever the executive branch thinks. Ultimately the judicial branch has final decision over the matter, however things can wrap back around.

Point being, Mr. Bush could have vetoed anything that came across his desk. A bill does not become law until he signs off on it. He simply didn't or used poor judgment with a lot of stuff and created a huge mess.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9023) 10 years ago
And honestly, you should reconsider labeling those you refer to 'teabaggers' as racist. I believe in reducing taxes and putting more people to work, less people on welfare.


I spent months at time over four years in Africa as my for-profit company (managed by Christian Conservatives, what you would call 'Teabaggers')


If these were meant as something other than and identification with the teatards, than I certainly misinterpreted.

As for the rest - I never said YOU were a racist, but I am implying that there are plenty of racists running around in both the Tea and the Republican party - hell, it's what the "Southern Strategy" is all about.
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+296) 10 years ago
Sigh.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9023) 10 years ago
What can I say Tracy? I'm just a guy who got an IT degree in Montana - I can't help it if my brains don't work none to good.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6171) 10 years ago
Still waiting.
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+296) 10 years ago
Glad to hear you are an IT guy...Bridgier. Me too...36 years in the business now....amazing how far we've come!

And I don't think 'your brains work none too good' ... we have a difference of opinion, and I don't think that's bad.

It's just not my way to lump large numbers of people into groups by rules I define, decide that the actions of a few within the group demonstrate the core values of the whole group, then call them names. Many years of military life and others who influenced me to treat the others opinions and persons with respect.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9023) 10 years ago
Now it's my turn to sigh.

Tracy, this thread began with a simple question: Why is Arizona so batpoop crazy? Not in a particular, person by person basis, but in the aggregate.

A mural goes up with black kids on it in Prescott - some white people freak out.

Arizona passes a law that, while proclaiming its race-neutral intent, can only be applied in a racist manner, for reasons which have been discussed upthread.

Other recent laws that Arizona has considered include restricting the hiring of elementary school teachers that have a Hispanic accent, as well as one that attempts to overturn the 14th amendment.

So... what the hell is wrong with Arizona? And why are we talking about the teahadeen in this thread anyways?

As to the other... I'm not trying to say you're a racist. I don't care if you're a racist. I'll go so far as to say that you probably aren't a racist. But beyond that - so what? The current mainstream conservative movement in the US capitalizes on fear, mostly fear of brown people, in order to advance its agenda of destroying the middle class in America. That's the problem, which starts with Ronald Reagan hiring Lee Atwater to run his campaign and reaches its goal with some random dude at a tea party rally with a "Show me the birf certificate" sign. The dog-whistle sounds, and the American freakshow responds.

So... sigh.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+16811) 10 years ago
The tea party movement consists of incoherent idiots. Not much else needs to be said on that account.

I pretty much agree with everything Bridgier has posted.

And I stand by my earlier posts in this thread. Namely, (1) penalize/imprison the employers, so illegal immigrants have no legal source of income; and (2) legalize illegal drugs, so illegal immigrants have no illegal source of income. Then they go away.

Poor old John McCain. He tried to pass some meaningful immigration reform a year or two ago, but he got screwed over by the conservative wing of his own party.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 10 years ago
Bridgier's just crabby cuz come November, he knows he'll be poking chads for the token tea-party DINO.

Anyway, here's today's exercise in Macroliberalnomics...

On one hand, minimum wage

On the other hand, a virtually limitless supply of potential immigrants willing to work for much less than $7.25 per hour (no taxes either)

Discuss.

In reality, there's no such thing as a job Americans won't do. It's all supply and demand. The end result looks alot like outsourcing, except keeping the social services burden right here at home, of course.
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+296) 10 years ago
http://www.ottawacitizen....story.html

Looks like Canada is enacting similar laws, albeit for different reasons.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9023) 10 years ago
Luckily for me, I'll be "poking a chad" for the 2nd District Democratic candidate for Congress, not the 1st.

Outcome will probably be the same, but there's principles involved.
Top
Posted by Maryann McDaniel (+256) 10 years ago
Amorette's response:
The uninsured go to emergency rooms for medical care everywhere so that doesn't count as a problem caused by immigration, it is caused by lack of medical insurance.

___
Are you unaware of the costs of the illegal immigrant uninsured in counties like Harris (Houston) and other counties along the border? It is astronomical (millions), are not reimbursed by either the state or the feds. Many hospitals in areas with high illegal immigrant populations have had to shut down to nearly all care (check out Spring Branch area of Houston, TX.) Many hospitals no longer provide any emergency care to anyone because of the illegal situation. Obstetric and pediatric care is being severely curtailed along the border because illegals are crossing over with severe medical issues.
____
If you do not live in a border state, you do not understand the issues we are facing. And people like the Milwaukee county official who insisted Arizona is not on the border are clueless. I propose Montanans also do not understand what is happening here in Texas, especially around Houston.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 10 years ago
The old "Insurance means less ER visits" Myth has gone the way of the dodo.

http://thehill.com/busine...ency-rooms

Exhibit 1237a in the "Ya, Now they Tell Us" file.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
I propose Montanans also do not understand what is happening here in Texas, especially around Houston.


And I propose that Texans (and Arizonans and Californians, etc.,) do not understand that if you did not provide a job base for illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants would not have a reason to be in your state. It is not rocket science. If there was no way to earn an income, they would move on to another state, or simply stay home. It is lunacy to me that we, as Americans, do not accept our culpability in this regard.

I know that this sentiment has been expressed ad nauseum, but our entitlement mentality to cheap goods and services, without the corresponding cost, is irksome.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 10 years ago
There will always be crooks, and where there is no enforcement, the crooks will thrive.

Arizona has tried enforcement on the employment side by mandating E-Verify.

The Obama administration promptly sued. They're in fact making the argument that only the federal government has jurisdiction. All while they happily ignore the problem.

Arizona then tried enforcement on the immigration side by seeking proof of residence for people detained for other reasons.

The Obama administration is threatening to sue again.

Not sure what should be expected. They can't very well verify immigrant status without the federal government's involvement. Let alone active opposition.

The problem isn't Laissez-faire economics, it's Laissez-faire government.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
I have to disagree. The problem is Laissez-faire economics.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Legal Arizona Workers Act (or Employer Sanctions Law as it is sometimes known) of which you speak went into effect on January 1, 2008. It continues in effect to this date, despite many legal challenges. Let's not mislead everyone into thinking that the only legal challenges have come from President Obama's administration. This law was attacked from the outset, before President Obama even swore his presidential oath. Now, where did these legal challenges come from? That's right, business associations and chambers of commerce, among others. Why could that be? Wouldn't every good businessperson want to do his/her part in the crackdown on illegal immigration? Gosh, golly, this just doesn't make sense to me.

Regardless, E-Verify has been mandated since the law's inception. How can you argue that it is the (or one of the) solution(s) to the problem, when it obviously is not working to Arizonans' liking?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 10 years ago
Regardless, E-Verify has been mandated since the law's inception. How can you argue that it is the (or one of the) solution(s) to the problem, when it obviously is not working to Arizonans' liking?


I'm not arguing that E-Verify is the solution. Like most federal solutions, it's an unmitigated disaster.

http://www.informationwee...=223100838

Government system employers can use to check a potential hire's eligibility to work in the U.S. accurately flags unauthorized workers less than half the time, according to a research report.
A report from Westat found that the Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify system inaccurately identifies workers unauthorized for employment in the U.S. as authorized 54 percent of the time.


Now tell me, how can employers be held to account when the federal government itself can't flag work ineligibility even half the time.

Next I'll hear about these same feds who are suing to prevent states from using E-Verify are going to make sure it gets fixed.

Anywho, please tell me, as an employer... even an honest one... how do you verify someone's status when the Federal database fails more often than it succeeds?

Do you fine employers for employing the 54% of illegals that get green-lighted by the system?

The fact of the matter is this is a problem the Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) didn't really want solved. That's why the states are taking matters into their own hands. The one thing you can't do, however, is blame Arizona for not trying.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
Are you saying then, that Arizona's employers are faithfully using E-Verify, as mandated, and that the reason illegal immigrants continue to find work in the state is that the E-Verify system is green-lighting ineligible workers? Keep in mind, we are only speaking of Arizona here, not the system in general, the Federal government, or any other state.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 10 years ago
http://www.azcentral.com/...y0226.html

That pretty much sums it up.

Anyway, it's easy enough to say that they aren't really trying. So if you were the Governor of Arizona, how would you ensure all those employees were either citizens or had visas?
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
Whew. I think I need a math degree to keep up with this article's number crunching.

Fifty-four percent of the illegal workers whose names were run through the program nationwide were wrongly found to be authorized to work, according to the report by Westat, a Maryland research company hired by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to evaluate the system, known as E-Verify.


AND

E-Verify allows employers to use an online program to run a worker's information against Homeland Security and Social Security databases to check whether the person is authorized to work in the U.S.

The Westat report, which studied data from September 2007 to June 2008, found that 93 percent of the workers checked by employers were accurately deemed authorized to work. The system wrongly flagged less than 1 percent of legal workers as being unauthorized.

About 6 percent of the people run through the system should not have been authorized to work, the report said, but nearly 54 percent of them were wrongly deemed authorized. That 54 percent amounts to about 3.3 percent of the total workers run through the system.

The accuracy checks are estimates based on federal records and interviews with employers, workers and federal staff.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9023) 10 years ago
Well, 54% DOES sound a lot worse than 3.3%.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 10 years ago
Normally, when the positive is what you're looking for, the false positive rate is what counts.

But seriously, you guys should go into marketing for the Obama TSA.

"Come, fly with us! We catch almost half of the terrorists that try to board our planes! And besides, they're only 6% of all passengers anyway!"
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5099) 10 years ago
Maybe you should do the PSA for the Bush Administration TSA, Rickenhawk. They did a heckuva job on 9/11, huh?
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
Is it the 3.3% percent slipping through the E-Verify cracks that is causing all the ruckus in Arizona? They are a pretty troublesome bunch.

Or could there be something more going on here? Perhaps employers paying illegals under the table to avoid the E-Verify mandate, as well as the typical employer obligations? Nah, that couldn't possibly be happening. What was I thinking?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 10 years ago
Actually the TSA didn't exist during 9/11 Bob.

That 3.3% doesn't have anything to do with Arizona. The 94/6 split was just the split the federal study sampled in E-Verify to test its accuracy.

It looks like it was based on a nationwide sample, so it would probably underestimate states with high illegal populations.

Again, the system is designed for the purpose of catching illegal workers applying for jobs. Feeding it 100% legal applicants wouldn't prove that it's working just because it didn't detect any illegals.

It's failing to detect what it's designed to detect more than half the time. Most people wouldn't consider that acceptable. Especially as a basis for legal proceedings.

You'd get laughed out of the courtroom if you tried to use that as justification for revoking someone's business license.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
Quite simply, do you think that Arizona's illegal immigration problem is due to the failue of the E-Verify system? Do you actually believe that the system's failures exceed the failures of Arizona's employers to properly report their new hires and pay them above board? Can you consider that, perhaps, in the race to cut costs to turn a profit, more and more employers are hiring illegals, paying them under the table, and saving wages, taxes and benefits? If you can concede this possibility, can you therefore also concede that doing so has its own associative cost, that being the costs attributable to illegal immigrants being in the border states in the first place, as many have outlined here prior, e.g. the drain on resources of clinics/hospital and schools, crime, etc.?

Bottom line: Residents of the border states, and really any state complaining about the problem of illegal immigration, need to accept partial responsibility for their plight. The immigrants would not be there if there were no jobs to be had. They cannot complain about the downsides, while turning a cheek to their gardener's or contractor's residency status.
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+296) 10 years ago
Yesterday, President Obama said the border with Mexico was 'more safe and secure than ever before' Then we have this:

http://www.timesnewsline....278090387/

So, it's interesting to see:

http://www.huffingtonpost...31431.html

The signs don't seem to support that notion....and we have:

http://www.thefoxnation.c...er-purpose

Note that I took a post each from two of the more polarized web sites...that was deliberate.

[This message has been edited by Tracy Walters (7/2/2010)]

[This message has been edited by Tracy Walters (7/2/2010)]
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+296) 10 years ago
And once again...thank you honorable Webmaster for bringing the Edit button back for those of us who are blog-challenged in some way.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3718) 10 years ago
Criminy, I wonder how many people were involved if 21 of them wound up dead.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9023) 10 years ago
21, if you can believe "No Country For Old Men"...
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9981) 10 years ago
Did I just read the word "blog" again? Growl. This is not a "blog" and none of us posting here are doing so as "bloggers" or "bloggees" or whatever. This is a public discussion "forum".

There is a big difference.

A "blog" is where some diphole, acting as if they were God, makes a post, permits others to reply, and strikes down everything they don't agree with.

A "forum" is where people speak, relatively freely, (preferably in a civil manner [but we've already determined that only to be a pipe dream]), amongst themselves in public.

Stop referring to this site as a "blog". It is irritating.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+351) 10 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 10 years ago
No, the real problem is 30 or 40 years of ignoring the law. What we're seeing today is a federal government finally pressed for solutions, and offering a (probably intentionally) broken system, with threat of lawsuit for anyone who dares mandate its use.

Common sense says immigration has to be controlled at some point. And getting it under control starts with either a sealed border or a work verification system that works. Your government doesn't want either.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11533) 10 years ago
And neither do the people who hire illegals. They give lip service to wanting to stop illegal immigration but would suffer economically if it actually happened.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 10 years ago
The psycho-analysis of employers is really just a distraction. Build a credible verification system and we'll soon be able to find out.

Otherwise, we're just the enabler, with the side effect of helping drive the most honest employers out of business. Then we whine about the dishonest ones who are left.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
One more time...

E-Verify was mandated in Arizona BEFORE Obama took office and was challenged in court BEFORE the Federal Government did so, by business associations and chambers of commerce.

One more time...

The best verification system in the world is NOT going to help when employers pay their employees under the table to avoid this EXACT same situation, having to report their workers and pay them higher wages and benefits.

One more time...

The illegal immigrants that the border states are complaining about are just the ones that E-Verify let slip through the cracks? Right?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14818) 10 years ago
The truth is nobody really wants to see what beef or corn would cost if we address the illegal immigration issue. Visit any large farm or feedlot in NE, KS, or CO and you will understand what I am talking about.
While I agree that employers should verify the citizenship status of those they hire, it is a little simplistic to say just don't hire those who are here illegally. Good or bad there are market forces involved here that have to be addressed in any comprehensive reform.

Practically speaking, we need to simultaneously extend amnesty to those who are here illegally, tighten border security, and change our immigration polices so that those who want to come here can do so quickly and legally. Annexing Mexico might be the simplest and cheapest way to accomplish this task.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (7/5/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
Richard, you speak my mind perfectly. You cannot have one without the other, as has been made quite clear before. Immigrants are obviously needed in our country. As I stated prior, you cannot enjoy all of the benefits of their labor, without the associative costs.

Annexing Mexico might be the simplest and cheapest way to accomplish this task.


Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+975) 10 years ago
Richard, Richard, Richard. What are you doing, bringing practicality and logic to this argument? Don't you know this is for emotional ranting and political posturing? It is a good thing you are not an elected official or else problems might work to a solution instead of forming divisive platforms and rhetorical stalemates for politicians to keep getting elected on without really working on. It is a good thing you are an engineer where you are suppose to solve problems instead of a politician who is suppose to keep them whipped into a foamy froth, or maybe we need to start electing problem solvers instead of rhetoric spewers.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
Visit any large farm or feedlot in NE, KS, or CO and you will understand what I am talking about.


Or meat-packing plant.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14818) 10 years ago
It is a good thing you are an engineer where you are suppose to solve problems instead of a politician who is suppose to keep them whipped into a foamy froth, or maybe we need to start electing problem solvers instead of rhetoric spewers.


I truly appreciate your comment, however Gunnar would appreciate it if you wouldn't refer to my occupation and use the word "engineer" in the same sentence.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (7/5/2010)]
Top
Posted by Tracy Walters (+296) 10 years ago
To the Webmaster:

I apologize for the reference to 'Blog' ... I did not intend to make the connection as it seemed, but was just trying to add some humor. Obviously, it not only fell flat, but offended you, which was an unintended consequense.

I realize this is a forum, and I'll do my best to not let the 'B' word creep into my conversation again.
Top