Immigration law

[smc]

I am for a world without borders.

Go ahead, flame the crap out of me.

(I'm proud that this is my 3,000th post!)

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

I am for a world without borders.

Go ahead, flame the crap out of me.

(I'm proud that this is my 3,000th post!)

Congratulations. I wont flame you just post an exotic little tid bit.
Trannys without borders, sounds good to me.

[franalexes]

[QUOTE=smc;148377]I am for a world without borders.

Go ahead, flame the crap out of me.

(I'm proud that this is my 3,000th post!)[/QUO

I suppose no one in Boston has a home with door locks?

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

I suppose no one in Boston has a home with door locks?

I never said anything about individual homes. My point is a serious one. If someone wants to disagree with the point, that's fine, but mocking my point should not be okay.

Of course, I realize that my position is far from the mainstream, even for those who disagree with the Arizona law. I will explain why I believe a world without borders is the best alternative.

Borders exist primarily for economic purposes. They have always been made by the rich and powerful, who traditionally have created borders to establish areas of control for markets and taxation as a means of avoiding competition or at least giving themselves an arena over which they have some means of control other than the "anarchy" of simple supply and demand. Corporations move across borders at will, whether physically or virtually.The borders, though, are primarily used to control buying and selling by us, regular people, and to manipulate the pool of workers.

The U.S. economy depends on a large pool of immigrant workers, especially to fill the lowest-paid jobs. One way to keep the wages low for immigrant workers is to marginalize them to the greatest degree possible. If you create borders and harsh conditions for crossing those borders -- terror, difficulty, susceptibility to arrest and deportation -- these workers are highly unlikely to stand up for themselves against the very exploitation that the rest of us would never accept. Then the politicians try to scapegoat them: they are the ones taking our jobs and costing us so much that we can't afford good social services, when in fact our jobs are being taken to low-paying countries by corporations, without government interference (because for them, the borders essentially don't exist) and the money for social services are being spent, well, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's notable that an immigrant crossing into the United States "illegally" in the hope of making a better life -- and that is the very reason most people do so -- will be detained by the authorities if caught and, before deportation, be offered a path to citizenship by joining the Armed Forces and going to Iraq or Afghanistan. Do you need any more indication of whose interests borders serve than that, which happens each and every day?

[Titivilus]

Originally Posted by smc

. . . Borders exist primarily for economic purposes. They have always been made by the rich and powerful, who traditionally have created borders to establish areas of control for markets and taxation as a means of avoiding competition or at least giving themselves an arena over which they have some means of control other than the "anarchy" of simple supply and demand. Corporations move across borders at will, whether physically or virtually.The borders, though, are primarily used to control buying and selling by us, regular people, and to manipulate the pool of workers.

That's actually a good point. And people scoff at my desire to see the "New World Order" come to fruition . . .

In all seriousness, when people speak of a global economy, it really means something. Corporations ignore borders, and rightly so. Nationalism and patriotism are a hold-over from the past, which should blur more and more as time goes by. The economic unification of Europe seems to be working out pretty well, and I believe is just another step in the on-going unification of the world as a whole. Go back through history and you'll see movement towards that goal for as long as people have been writing.

After all, in the end, it's really about allocation of resources. Cooperative effort benefits the species, and, in fact, it seems that our brains are hard-wired for precisely that goal. Once the population reaches a certain threshold, we will be FORCED to consolidate under one controlling mechanism (whatever that might be) to support and sustain said population. I think the Agricultural Revolution is a good example of this principle in action, causing the creation of city-states and jump-starting the centralization of populations.

The U.S. economy depends on a large pool of immigrant workers, especially to fill the lowest-paid jobs. One way to keep the wages low for immigrant workers is to marginalize them to the greatest degree possible. If you create borders and harsh conditions for crossing those borders -- terror, difficulty, susceptibility to arrest and deportation -- these workers are highly unlikely to stand up for themselves against the very exploitation that the rest of us would never accept. Then the politicians try to scapegoat them: they are the ones taking our jobs and costing us so much that we can't afford good social services, when in fact our jobs are being taken to low-paying countries by corporations, without government interference (because for them, the borders essentially don't exist) and the money for social services are being spent, well, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's notable that an immigrant crossing into the United States "illegally" in the hope of making a better life -- and that is the very reason most people do so -- will be detained by the authorities if caught and, before deportation, be offered a path to citizenship by joining the Armed Forces and going to Iraq or Afghanistan. Do you need any more indication of whose interests borders serve than that, which happens each and every day?

I served in the military myself, and live in Arizona. While it's my opinion that the average Joe in this country is both apathetic and ignorant (sorry, but we're dumber as a whole than we have been since before WWII), I myself am somewhat conflicted. I'm the progeny of immigrants, after all, a first-generation American, so I tend to have a very hard-nosed attitude towards people who bypass the system.

Having said that, to ignore the vast numbers of illegals is simply silly. White Elephant in the living room anyone? Building a wall is also silly, and historically speaking, has never worked. Look to the Great Wall for an example. Chest-beating rhetoric and brandished weapons only compound the problem, without addressing the underlying issue.

I don't see any way to REALLY solve the problem without addressing the economic state of our neighbors. Why do people come to this country, after all? If our southern neighbors had economic and social parity it wouldn't be an issue at all, as there would be no incentive to relocate.

Until the Mexican government is stable, including laws which protect their citizenry and workforce, and economically healthy, I see no real solution to illegal immigration.

As for the recent law itself? If I understand it correctly, it's just the Federal law coupled with the ADDITION of Miranda rights (there must be probable cause to justify requesting ID, much like the seatbelt law, and I don't think the feds need to worry about that). I don't have a problem with this at all.

Just my two cents.

[Risquevania]

The uproar is not targeted at the whole thing, but this part:

Officers have to interrogate everybody who looks like an illegal immigrant. Or anyone could sue him or her of not doing their job.

In short, this is a new version of "pull off every car with American-American in it, cus they all look suspicious".

Some police stations are against it because it puts them into a lose-lose situation. If you interrogate someone who looks "illegal", the victim can sue the police for "racial profiling". Now if the officer don't use racial profile, they will be sued for not doing their job.

It's not like some of the right-wing media described, "they wanna open the border". Nobody said let the illegals get in, but this part of the law put police in a really bad position.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Risquevania

The uproar is not targeted at the whole thing, but this part:

Officers have to interrogate everybody who looks like an illegal immigrant. Or anyone could sue him or her of not doing their job.

That's not what the law says. The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.

Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:

* A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver’s license or other form of federal or state identification.
* A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
* A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.


Yeah, I know... There I go again bringing facts into the debate.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

The general perception in the United Kingdom with its unchecked European, Indian and African immigration of the past eight years is that crime syndicates, particularly from Eastern Europe, Nigeria and the horn of Africa, have prospered and expanded their spheres of operation, particularly in the child sex-trade.
Governments, almost without exception, will invariably deny that there is a problem, but it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity.

It would be interesting to have figures to show if rises in levels of immigration across Western Europe, and North America have occurred in the past ten years, and if so, what the percentages are. Prison figures might also show a correspondence, if one exists.

Originally Posted by smc

This is a racist view, pure and simple, painting with a broad brush immigrants as generally linked to crime syndicates. Racism, racism, racism.

I don't find this to be racist at all. Racism implies a superiority of ability due to racial factors. He said nothing of the sort. He simply noted that there is a correlation between the demographics of a certain region and a higher incidence of crime.

[The Conquistador]

Lest we forget, this whole thing was enacted because the drug cartels were killing Americans on American soil so that they could move unimpeded through the area. I believe the figure was something like 10,000- 30,000 people yearly killed by cartel members. Juarez is another good example. The cartels will routinely kidnap Mexicans and Americans, bring them into Mexico and absolutely torture and/or dismember the victims. I've seen videos that they release of the torturing of their victims and one of them showed a guy being fed into a meat grinder feet first. This is a regular occurence in Juarez and Tijuana and most of the cities in Mexico.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article...ancun/19506105

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...oviolence.html

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2...nt_9908870.htm

http://www.39online.com/news/local/k...,2298734.story

http://reproductiverights.org/es/node/283

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/mex...n_victims.html

This is a daily occurence, not sporadic outbreaks of violence. They started coming over here, kidnappping or killing American citizens and think there will be no backlash or retaliation? In the words of Judas Priest, "You've got another thing comin'."

You can cry racism, but the fact of the matter is that Mexicans specifically are the ones perpetrating these heinous crimes and will continue to do so unless someone puts a boot in their ass.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I don't find this to be racist at all. Racism implies a superiority of ability due to racial factors. He said nothing of the sort. He simply noted that there is a correlation between the demographics of a certain region and a higher incidence of crime.

Racism is about more than a "superiority of ability." It is belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce some inherent superiority or inferiority of particular races. Hence, drawing a link between race and crime so generally is a form of racism.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Lest we forget, this whole thing was enacted because the drug cartels were killing Americans on American soil so that they could move unimpeded through the area. ...

You can cry racism, but the fact of the matter is that Mexicans specifically are the ones perpetrating these heinous crimes and will continue to do so unless someone puts a boot in their ass.

You are correct that it is Mexicans that are perpetrating the crimes to which you refer. Let me use an analogy to make my point, though, and forgive me for its imperfection. I think the point will still come across. If the government decided that Wall Street bankers such as Lloyd Bankfein had committed heinous crimes by destroying the economy and that as a group the perpetrators of such crimes need to be rounded up so that they cannot do so anymore, would you support New York City giving police the right to stop anyone who looks Jewish and is wearing a very expensive suit? Of course not. The problem with the law in Arizona is two-fold. The first is that an immigration law is not the way to deal with this criminal behavior by drug cartels. The second is that if your explanation is the logic behind the law, then it is based on the concept of collective guilt of all "Mexicans."

I do not believe that anyone seriously believes this law is a way to stop the drug cartels. I do believe that the proponents of the law do believe that all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) are guilty of something: not being white, and becoming a larger part of the population than whites. People are terrified that "their America" is disappearing, and the Arizona law is just one of their reactionary responses.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

I suppose no one in Boston has a home with door locks?

Actually, according to figures, areas with large numbers of illegal immigrants have lower crime rates. Go figure.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Actually, according to figures, areas with large numbers of illegal immigrants have lower crime rates. Go figure.

Interesting. Have you got a source for this information or a link to the source?

[Mel Asher]

Originally Posted by ila

Interesting. Have you got a source for this information or a link to the source?

The general perception in the United Kingdom with its unchecked European, Indian and African immigration of the past eight years is that crime syndicates, particularly from Eastern Europe, Nigeria and the horn of Africa, have prospered and expanded their spheres of operation, particularly in the child sex-trade.
Governments, almost without exception, will invariably deny that there is a problem, but it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity.

It would be interesting to have figures to show if rises in levels of immigration across Western Europe, and North America have occurred in the past ten years, and if so, what the percentages are. Prison figures might also show a correspondence, if one exists.

[meaty_pete]

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

The general perception in the United Kingdom with its unchecked European, Indian and African immigration of the past eight years is that crime syndicates, particularly from Eastern Europe, Nigeria and the horn of Africa, have prospered and expanded their spheres of operation, particularly in the child sex-trade.
Governments, almost without exception, will invariably deny that there is a problem, but it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity.

It would be interesting to have figures to show if rises in levels of immigration across Western Europe, and North America have occurred in the past ten years, and if so, what the percentages are. Prison figures might also show a correspondence, if one exists.

The general perception of who exactly? Some out-of-touch bloke in the public bar reading a copy of the daily express? Don't tar everybody in this country with your clueless, racist views.

Sorry I had to stop lurking and finally post something but lazy crap like this makes my blood boil.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

The general perception in the United Kingdom with its unchecked European, Indian and African immigration of the past eight years is that crime syndicates, particularly from Eastern Europe, Nigeria and the horn of Africa, have prospered and expanded their spheres of operation, particularly in the child sex-trade.
Governments, almost without exception, will invariably deny that there is a problem, but it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity.

It would be interesting to have figures to show if rises in levels of immigration across Western Europe, and North America have occurred in the past ten years, and if so, what the percentages are. Prison figures might also show a correspondence, if one exists.

This is a racist view, pure and simple, painting with a broad brush immigrants as generally linked to crime syndicates. Racism, racism, racism.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

Interesting. Have you got a source for this information or a link to the source?

An article in pe.com (Riverside Ca.) by Ruben Navarrette (member of Washington Post Writers Group) pointed out that cities with large populations of illegal immigrants have lower crime rates. This is probably the result of illegals keeping a low profile to avoid getting arrested and deported. There are other references to the studies, done in the 1990s, on the internet.
Here in California, things are getting much tougher for illegals. One I know who has been here for ten years, working hard, getting married to a US citizen and having two children is getting deported. Another who has a lawn care business is getting deported.
People come to this country because there are jobs here. We need some kind of a work permit system that lets them do the work but keeps their families back home. This would help the schools and the health care services. Its a sad situation, these are people just trying to make a living. Thanks to NAFTA destroying the small farmer economy of Mexico these people had to find work somewhere.