Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[elthrasher]

I'm actually torn on it.

There are some studies how that already show the millions of dollars Arizona has lost in revenues as conferences and such are canceled in protest. It isn't making any economic sense for them. Plus the law is just obscene. In addition to the fact that it requires the police to engage in racial profiling, it actually allows private citizens to sue the police if they don't engage in racial profiling. Like cops don't have enough stress in their lives. Now if you don't bust enough Mexican heads, you'll get sued. But wait, if those Mexican heads happen to belong to US citizens, you'll get sued for that as well. Really nice deal for the cops.

This law does nothing to deal with the actual problem other than give some racists the satisfaction of seeing some brown people beat up. People will continue to sneak into the country looking for work as long as employers offer them jobs which they can't find in their home countries. They are already risking a lot and doing so because their needs are dire. Why would a law which basically only punishes those who are in the US legally make any difference to the undocumented?

Now does this stupid law go after the employers? Heck no. The big businesses that bankroll politicians don't want to lose access to their cheap labor. So the point here is to placate the wingnut voter while doing absolutely nothing about the problem, pointing fingers at Uncle Sam (you know, the blame America first crowd) and continuing to have a supply of cheap labor. I guess the hope must be that the Latino community gets fed up and moves to another state, but more likely Arizona will go the way California did when prop 187 was passed and Republicans will have a tough time getting elected in Arizona for the foreseeable future.

All in all, very shortsighted and stupid. If you want to argue that the problem is growing and they need to do something, then fine, but this isn't it.

[ShowtekGER]

i'm not sure if i can see the new law in your link, hgb. it's my favorite issue because i'm obsessed with the idea of equality of freedom of all people.

i don't really understand why there are so many mexicans risking their lives to get to the usa like that. mexico isn't a highly developed country bus it isn't poor either. do people starve in mexico? my guess would be no. at least not significantly more than in 1st world countries.

i don't know. from an abstract standpoint, i find i awkward that people i the us can regard themselves as americans while they others may not call themselves that. their ancestors were immigrants, did a little genocide on the indigenous people there, and settled down. now, when other people that struggle with their home country want to join, they aren't allowed to. contrary to this, americans are comparatively proud of their nationality which probably is a natural product of their history. anyway, conservatism, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism are still strong forces over there; ideologies that all are misanthropic and destructive in my opinion.

[Pedal2Metal]

There are some studies how that already show the millions of dollars Arizona has lost in revenues as conferences and such are canceled in protest. It isn't making any economic sense for them. Plus the law is just obscene. In addition to the fact that it requires the police to engage in racial profiling, it actually allows private citizens to sue the police if they don't engage in racial profiling. Like cops don't have enough stress in their lives. Now if you don't bust enough Mexican heads, you'll get sued. But wait, if those Mexican heads happen to belong to US citizens, you'll get sued for that as well. Really nice deal for the cops.

This law does nothing to deal with the actual problem other than give some racists the satisfaction of seeing some brown people beat up. People will continue to sneak into the country looking for work as long as employers offer them jobs which they can't find in their home countries. They are already risking a lot and doing so because their needs are dire. Why would a law which basically only punishes those who are in the US legally make any difference to the undocumented?

Now does this stupid law go after the employers? Heck no. The big businesses that bankroll politicians don't want to lose access to their cheap labor. So the point here is to placate the wingnut voter while doing absolutely nothing about the problem, pointing fingers at Uncle Sam (you know, the blame America first crowd) and continuing to have a supply of cheap labor. I guess the hope must be that the Latino community gets fed up and moves to another state, but more likely Arizona will go the way California did when prop 187 was passed and Republicans will have a tough time getting elected in Arizona for the foreseeable future.

All in all, very shortsighted and stupid. If you want to argue that the problem is growing and they need to do something, then fine, but this isn't it.

Well, on the point of the revenue loss, the law was voted on & passed. So clearly some substantive percentage of the Arizona voting population voted in favor. The revenue loss is a pragmatic point but it's a reaction based on the action itself vs. merit-based. What if every governing body did or didn't make decisions due to the threat of protest? Appeasement as a governing principle doesn't work overall. Not in parenting & not in government.

I agree with the other points which address the merits of the law itself. The law itself is counter-productive. However, illegal immigration is illegal. The issue itself is what I'm "torn" about vs. the law itself. I didn't make that clear. What to do? Should the idea of national borders should simply be abolished along with the associated laws? Probably not. So we either need to make a way for the "illegals" to become legal (amnesty process), or provide a better method of managing illegal immigration and/or somehow fill in the jobs that are currently filled by illegals or other ideas. However, I doubt any amnesty process will help much in terms of immigration latency as HGB brings up a good point that we definitely don't want to just pass-over the criminal element in any immigration population, legal or illegal. Terrorism is a genuine issue now for US national security. I doubt legal immigrants and/or citizens are going to suddenly start taking jobs that illegals occupy now. There have been studies showing that a mass exodus of illegal immigrants would have a significant negative economic impact on industries utilizing that workforce (housing, etc...). Are we prepared for that as a country in this economic climate? I doubt it. I also doubt that suddenly the USA and/or states will be able to patrol the 100's of miles of national borders between USA & Mexico better either.

In short, I don't see any substantive solutions on the horizon. I think it's a tough nut to crack.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

i don't really understand why there are so many mexicans risking their lives to get to the usa like that. mexico isn't a highly developed country bus it isn't poor either. do people starve in mexico? my guess would be no. at least not significantly more than in 1st world countries.

Yes, people starve in Mexico. There is terrible poverty there, the like you probably can't find in Europe. There are also wealthy and middle-class people of course. Most of the undocumented people who come into the US are doing it because they can't really have any kind of decent life in Mexico. If they could, they'd probably stay there.

I agree the law itself seems counter-productive. However, illegal immigration is illegal. This is what I'm "torn" about. What to do? Should the idea of national borders should simply be abolished along with the associated laws? Probably not. So we either need to make a way for the "illegals" to become legal (amnesty process), or provide a better method of managing illegal immigration and/or somehow fill in the jobs that are currently filled by illegals or other ideas. However, I doubt any amnesty process will help much in terms of immigration latency as HGB brings up a good point that we definitely don't want to just pass-over the criminal element in any immigration population, legal or illegal. Terrorism is a genuine issue now for US national security. I doubt legal immigrants and/or citizens are going to suddenly start taking jobs that illegals occupy now. There have been studies showing that a mass exodus of illegal immigrants would have a significant negative economic impact on industries utilizing that workforce (housing, etc...). Are we prepared for that as a country in this economic climate? I doubt it. I also doubt that suddenly the USA and/or states will be able to patrol the 100's of miles of national borders between USA & Mexico better either.

In short, I don't see any substantive solutions on the horizon. I think it's a tough nut to crack.

Yeah, all that stuff is true and it is a very difficult and challenging problem. I'm not torn about the Arizona bill because I think it just fans the flames of racism without actually addressing any problems.

[elthrasher]

Well, on the point of the revenue loss, the law was voted on & passed. So clearly some substantive percentage of the Arizona voting population voted in favor. The revenue loss is a pragmatic point but it's a reaction based on the action itself vs. merit-based. What if every governing body did or didn't make decisions due to the threat of protest? Appeasement as a governing principle doesn't work overall. Not in parenting & not in government.

You went and changed your whole post after I responded! Heh.

The Arizona law was not a ballot initiative like the 1994 California one was, so the Arizona voting population didn't actually directly weigh in on it. A majority of Arizona voters presumably voted for lawmakers who went and voted for this bill, but they didn't directly vote on the bill.

Is parenting like government? Seems like you're comparing apples to oranges there. This isn't a case of some kids refusing to brush their teeth. It's consumers choosing to take their business elsewhere and having a negative effect on the Arizona economy. If people are having their widget conventions in other states for fear of widgeteers being hassled by Arizona cops, that's not protest or a demand for appeasement. That's just a bad law driving business away.

[Pedal2Metal]

Yes, people starve in Mexico. There is terrible poverty there, the like you probably can't find in Europe. There are also wealthy and middle-class people of course. Most of the undocumented people who come into the US are doing it because they can't really have any kind of decent life in Mexico. If they could, they'd probably stay there..

Ditto. I have personal contacts w/illegals all the time. The majority are hard-working people looking for a better life. It's a genuinely risky thing to cross the border illegally so they don't do it "on a whim".

Yeah, all that stuff is true and it is a very difficult and challenging problem. I'm not torn about the Arizona bill because I think it just fans the flames of racism without actually addressing any problems.

I'm thinking actually it may have the opposite effect. It may galvanize opposition to the law across party, social, & racial lines so much as to actually unify the population more, both in Arizona and across the country. Anyhow, you're right. I'm not torn on the law itself.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

You went and changed your whole post after I responded! Heh..

Not really, just a header note. The substance was still the same which you addressed.

The Arizona law was not a ballot initiative like the 1994 California one was, so the Arizona voting population didn't actually directly weigh in on it. A majority of Arizona voters presumably voted for lawmakers who went and voted for this bill, but they didn't directly vote on the bill...

Yeah that's a notable distinction. Statistically, would it make a difference in the result? Who knows.

Is parenting like government? Seems like you're comparing apples to oranges there. This isn't a case of some kids refusing to brush their teeth. It's consumers choosing to take their business elsewhere and having a negative effect on the Arizona economy. If people are having their widget conventions in other states for fear of widgeteers being hassled by Arizona cops, that's not protest or a demand for appeasement. That's just a bad law driving business away.

Parenting is a form of government although it can take different forms depending upon the parents & circumstances. In this specific instance, however, I think your point is well-taken.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[sdu754]

In the Arizona law they have to be stopped for something, then the police ask for verification. So It's not like they're just asking anyone of a certain skin color if they're legal, they actually have to be doing something first. Plus they are here illegally, why should they get amnesty and a path to citizenship over someone who came here through the right channels?

Also It's not that Americans won't do the same jobs that illegal immigrants do, it's that the won't do them for the same amount of money, most illegals work for less than minimum wage. Have you ever seen the show dirty jobs? With unemployment at 10% in the USA, if employers were faced to pay decent wages, those jobs would be filled.

The problem is that the media has made this law out to be way worse than what it actually is.

[Pedal2Metal]

Have you ever seen the show dirty jobs? With unemployment at 10% in the USA, if employers were faced to pay decent wages, those jobs would be filled..

Maybe. Forcing higher wages (I assume you meant to use the word "force"), would result in either higher prices to maintain profit margins or less profit/greater loss or both. Both have economic ripple effects. Forcing wages by fiat doesn't mean that's a fair market valuation for the job, nor that it will "just work".

I agree that people being pulled over just because of skin color is an exaggeration typically. There are usually other extenuating circumstances. That being said, has the law opened up opportunities for residents/citizens that would otherwise not have had such opportunities? Perhaps Thrasher is right that going after the employers might be more effective in this regard.

The problem is that the media has made this law out to be way worse than what it actually is.

The media doesn't like the law apparently so they bypass the legislative channels & use their "influence". SOP (standard operating procedure) for any & all media operations.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

Perhaps Thrasher is right that going after the employers might be more effective in this regard.

If the solution is to treat the problem from a law enforcement standpoint (I say without passing judgment), then without doing this you might as well not do anything. If your problem is rampant prostitution in your town, you have to arrest the Johns as well as the hookers or the problem will never go away. You can't just go "Excuse me, sir, so sorry to trouble you, but would you please get off that prostitute so we can arrest her?" Nope. Not gonna work because if you don't arrest John, he'll find someone else to pay for sex.

There are other solutions like putting pressure on Mexico to take better care of its poor so they don't feel the need to sneak into the US looking for work. We could admit our economy depends on these workers and look into a "guest worker" program as some have proposed in the past. I'm sure other notions have been put forward as well. I'm not an expert, so I'm not going to say these are good or bad ideas. Just going after the undocumented is a bad idea based on the analogy above.

[Pedal2Metal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/opinion/11brooks.html
"Organization Kids"... hmmm...

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Hellogoodbye123]

i'm not sure if i can see the new law in your link, hgb. it's my favorite issue because i'm obsessed with the idea of equality of freedom of all people.

i don't really understand why there are so many mexicans risking their lives to get to the usa like that. mexico isn't a highly developed country bus it isn't poor either. do people starve in mexico? my guess would be no. at least not significantly more than in 1st world countries.

i don't know. from an abstract standpoint, i find i awkward that people i the us can regard themselves as americans while they others may not call themselves that. their ancestors were immigrants, did a little genocide on the indigenous people there, and settled down. now, when other people that struggle with their home country want to join, they aren't allowed to. contrary to this, americans are comparatively proud of their nationality which probably is a natural product of their history. anyway, conservatism, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism are still strong forces over there; ideologies that all are misanthropic and destructive in my opinion.

in a way yes, if you go to border towns you wont see this, because all mexicans living close by the border cross the border at around 2-3am.. to work in the u.s.a and come to mexico daily to use the money.. since the dollar is worth a little more in mexico..

but if you go to deep down mexico, theirs corruption, theft, murder, rape.. gangs.. theirs low, middle, and high class.. the oly problem is that theirs almost no middle class.. and almost everyone is poor.. the govt.. and industry owners are pretty much all the wealthy ppl.. i know mexico is around the 14th largest economy.. since not only the richest guy is mexican.. but they have sooo many candy companies.and they also have oil..

[Grayson]

in a way yes, if you go to border towns you wont see this, because all mexicans living close by the border cross the border at around 2-3am.. to work in the u.s.a and come to mexico daily to use the money.. since the dollar is worth a little more in mexico..

but if you go to deep down mexico, theirs corruption, theft, murder, rape.. gangs.. theirs low, middle, and high class.. the oly problem is that theirs almost no middle class.. and almost everyone is poor.. the govt.. and industry owners are pretty much all the wealthy ppl.. i know mexico is around the 14th largest economy.. since not only the richest guy is mexican.. but they have sooo many candy companies.and they also have oil..

I agree with the assessment that there is little to no middle class in Mexico. The border area is also very poor, and very much dominated by drug cartels and corruption in government (either criminal or exhorted). I've been to the border several times, and used to live in a border town (harlingen tx), and crossing the border is always like going into a completely different world, unlike in Europe where the language and a few customs are the only thing that changes (when I lived in france, I lived right next to germany, belgium, and luxembourg).

I've been to visit my friends in san luis potosi a few times, which is still north of mexico city, but is pretty poor overall. I also have a lot of friends that are well off that are from mexico, and they mostly live along the coasts, and they say they live in a different mexico economically than those living away from the coasts.

I don't have much opinon on the current arizona law, other than it seems to be against what I support for immigration (a path to amnesty and more compassion for immigrants, as the united states has always been a nation of immigrants). I do think both political parties in the US are once again turning a human issue into a fierce political issue, and trying to score points before midterm congressional elections, so it's tough to listen to pundits and politicians at this time.

The Arizona law may go before the Supreme Court, or that's what Attorney General Holder has hinted at. I don't know if that will come about, but if it does, I still don't think much will progress on Immigration, and the bases of both parties will just become more reved up about the issue, but the status quo will remain.

to ShowtekGER & other European posters:

I'd be interested to hear your take on immigration in Europe. When I lived there, it was always a very controversial issue, with a lot of similarities to the immgration debates we have here. In France, there seems to be a lot of negative sentiment towards Arabs and Africans coming in, and there were many politicians who would introduce many controversial laws targets those two peoples. In france, wearing a Islamic veil is not outlawed in government buildings and muslims can't wear them to school. Current French President Nicholas Sarkozy used to be the Minister de l'Interiur, and he tried to enforce lots of laws targeting Arabs in particular. Public sentiment towards Arabs in France seem to be markedly more racists than racism I've seen living in the Southern USA towards blacks and latinos. I was shocked about this, as I also considered France a more socially progressive nation than most. It is for the most part, but little things like that were shocking.

[ShowtekGER]

i just checked the human development index and it says mexico is a "highly" developed country. above of "high" is only "very high". but i guess this is because they have a comparatively big upper class socially. just like saudi arabia for example where a lot of people are extremely poor while a small minority is extremely rich. rich enough to falsify such statistics.

I'd be interested to hear your take on immigration in Europe. When I lived there, it was always a very controversial issue, with a lot of similarities to the immgration debates we have here. In France, there seems to be a lot of negative sentiment towards Arabs and Africans coming in, and there were many politicians who would introduce many controversial laws targets those two peoples. In france, wearing a Islamic veil is not outlawed in government buildings and muslims can't wear them to school. Current French President Nicholas Sarkozy used to be the Minister de l'Interiur, and he tried to enforce lots of laws targeting Arabs in particular. Public sentiment towards Arabs in France seem to be markedly more racists than racism I've seen living in the Southern USA towards blacks and latinos. I was shocked about this, as I also considered France a more socially progressive nation than most. It is for the most part, but little things like that were shocking.

oh, yes, there's a lot of hatred here. it's no difference from america, really. racism in the us is mainly directed against black people and mexicans, in europe against muslims (france - algeria, germany - turkey, uk - pakistan and so forth). people want the same all over the world. they want to survive and make sure their children live a decent life. so either you move away from your home country which does not offer the demanded opportunities or you protect yourself from what you allege to be a threat in your own country. e.g. people from the iran go to denmark because their lives are at risk at home because of war and political persecution or you live in eastern germany: you have no job, your uncle has no job, your neighbor has no job, but the turkish immigrant has. you feel humiliated because you live off society's support and are really angry, young and full of testosterone. so is the offspring of the turkish immigrants. the results are foreseeable.

it's a really big problem and i have no idea how to solve it. the immigrants have to somehow be integrated better, otherwise it looks bad for europe.

[danthechan]

it's a really big problem and i have no idea how to solve it. the immigrants have to somehow be integrated better, otherwise it looks bad for europe.

a recent statistic i read illustrated how the birth rate is down in pretty much all european countries, except among their muslim population. amongst muslims its skyrocketing, and within 20 years many of these ancient countries will no longer be christian or catholic majorities. i could see where this might lead to some tension.

[Hellogoodbye123]

well some cities of mexico produce a lot of money, like the capital.. mainly because its a very populous city, if im correct i think its one of largest, which could produce a lot from its citizens..

also i would say acapulco, because of spring break.. every spring break mexicos economy prospers lol.. because the money leaves the u.s and enters mexico.. and this happens daily with mexicans crossing the border daily..

[sdu754]

Maybe. Forcing higher wages (I assume you meant to use the word "force"), would result in either higher prices to maintain profit margins or less profit/greater loss or both. Both have economic ripple effects. Forcing wages by fiat doesn't mean that's a fair market valuation for the job, nor that it will "just work".

I agree that people being pulled over just because of skin color is an exaggeration typically. There are usually other extenuating circumstances. That being said, has the law opened up opportunities for residents/citizens that would otherwise not have had such opportunities? Perhaps Thrasher is right that going after the employers might be more effective in this regard.



The media doesn't like the law apparently so they bypass the legislative channels & use their "influence". SOP (standard operating procedure) for any & all media operations.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

When I say pay higher wages, I meant that if they didn't have illegal immigrants to hire, they would be forced to pay higher wages by the market.

Thrasher is right that they have to punish the employers to, but the first step is to secure the borders, then pass laws to punish the employers. In fact I think if the employers got into enough troble for hiring illegals, it would do more to get rid of the problem then mass exportation.

[Zefelius]

I agree with the other points which address the merits of the law itself. The law itself is counter-productive. However, illegal immigration is illegal. The issue itself is what I'm "torn" about vs. the law itself.

This may surprise some people in the forum, but I think the underlined part is exactly right---not merely in terms of it being a tautology, but also in the rhetorical way in which you meant it (or at least as I interpreted it). I have some liberal friends who believe that anyone who wants to enforce the law is automatically a racist. That may be true of some of the conservatives, but obviously it's not true of all of them. It's a complex issue, to be sure, but it always strikes me as a little disingenuous when liberals and conservatives use strawman arguments against one another. As Grayson mentioned, it's difficult to listen to the pundits and politicians right now as so many of them are trying to score points before the midterm elections.

[Aheadatime]

Its simple, fortify the border and check all immigrants/travelers for citizenship. Not sure how and why the border is so easy to cross, given the funding has increased steadily for the border patrol over the past decade, and the problem seems to exponentially increase.

Attacking those already here via racial profiling is a dumb way to go about the problem, i always say for political issues attack the source, which in this case is the border itself. Perhaps they could have used some of their budget for a citizen check system in which they 'clean out' their state through a month or two process, and after thats taken care of fortify the border. Dont see how issues can get so complex and dumb-found so many politicians and citizens alike when theres such obvious fix's.

[elthrasher]

Its simple, fortify the border and check all immigrants/travelers for citizenship. Not sure how and why the border is so easy to cross, given the funding has increased steadily for the border patrol over the past decade, and the problem seems to exponentially increase.

Attacking those already here via racial profiling is a dumb way to go about the problem, i always say for political issues attack the source, which in this case is the border itself. Perhaps they could have used some of their budget for a citizen check system in which they 'clean out' their state through a month or two process, and after thats taken care of fortify the border. Dont see how issues can get so complex and dumb-found so many politicians and citizens alike when theres such obvious fix's.

Seeing a leaky border as the source of the problem is, I think, erroneous. The US-Mexico border is hundreds of miles long. How do you plug that up? A giant wall? Plus there's heavy traffic at the border crossings. Do you search every vehicle that goes through?

The source of the problem is that these people can't even get a starvation wage in Mexico (and neither are there much in the way of social services for them - they just starve) and that there are employers who will gladly pay them a starvation wage here in the US. Remove one of those factors, and the problem would diminish greatly.

By comparison, I will note that although the US-Canada border is even longer than the US-Mexico one and less secure, there's not really any concern about Canadians sneaking across and stealing all our valuable dishwashing and gardening jobs. Clearly the border isn't the problem.

[elthrasher]

This may surprise some people in the forum, but I think the underlined part is exactly right---not merely in terms of it being a tautology, but also in the rhetorical way in which you meant it (or at least as I interpreted it).

It's about priority. Is it your priority to enforce the law or is it your priority to solve a problem?

Both of these things are valid goals, but one doesn't necessarily lead to the other.

[Pedal2Metal]

Seeing a leaky border as the source of the problem is, I think, erroneous. The US-Mexico border is hundreds of miles long. How do you plug that up? A giant wall? Plus there's heavy traffic at the border crossings. Do you search every vehicle that goes through?.

I don't think Aheadatime was insinuating it was a source of the problem but rather a necessary condition to having delineated borders that actually have meaning. However, being in Texas, this problem is genuinely a economic boondoggle & a black hole cost-wise so I agree that it's not the most cost-effective way to address the issue given the sources are elsewhere.

The source of the problem is that these people can't even get a starvation wage in Mexico (and neither are there much in the way of social services for them - they just starve) and that there are employers who will gladly pay them a starvation wage here in the US. Remove one of those factors, and the problem would diminish greatly..

I agree.

By comparison, I will note that although the US-Canada border is even longer than the US-Mexico one and less secure, there's not really any concern about Canadians sneaking across and stealing all our valuable dishwashing and gardening jobs. Clearly the border isn't the problem.

True. I saw a report on how terrorists are also realizing this & that threats of this nature from Canadian border are an increasing security concern.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

I don't think Aheadatime was insinuating it was a source of the problem but rather a necessary condition to having delineated borders that actually have meaning.

i always say for political issues attack the source, which in this case is the border itself.

Sounds to me like he was.

[sdu754]

I have some liberal friends who believe that anyone who wants to enforce the law is automatically a racist. That may be true of some of the conservatives, but obviously it's not true of all of them.

This is a typical liberal trick, if you don't agree with us you're racist (especially if you don't like Obama's policies!).

Its simple, fortify the border and check all immigrants/travelers for citizenship. Not sure how and why the border is so easy to cross, given the funding has increased steadily for the border patrol over the past decade, and the problem seems to exponentially increase.

Attacking those already here via racial profiling is a dumb way to go about the problem, i always say for political issues attack the source, which in this case is the border itself. Perhaps they could have used some of their budget for a citizen check system in which they 'clean out' their state through a month or two process, and after thats taken care of fortify the border. Dont see how issues can get so complex and dumb-found so many politicians and citizens alike when theres such obvious fix's.

The politicians don't want to seal the border, because they don't want to piss off the hispanic population in this country, and risk losing thier votes. It's not really racial profiling, because they're not just asking anyone of a certain color for id, they have to be stopped for something else first.

[elthrasher]

The politicians don't want to seal the border, because they don't want to piss off the hispanic population in this country, and risk losing thier votes. It's not really racial profiling, because they're not just asking anyone of a certain color for id, they have to be stopped for something else first.

That's a reason not to pass a law like what they've got now in Arizona. The reason they don't want to close the borders is they don't want to shut off the supply of cheap labor. Voters favor legal immigration, not illegal. It's the big business that is all over illegal immigration because it's good for them. Don't have to pay much. No benefits. No unions. No lawsuits.

[Pedal2Metal]

The politicians don't want to seal the border, because they don't want to piss off the hispanic population in this country, and risk losing thier votes. It's not really racial profiling, because they're not just asking anyone of a certain color for id, they have to be stopped for something else first.

Sealing the Texas-Mexico border, politics aside, is an expensive proposition. Given the benefit to the Texas economy (among others) that illegal immigrants provide, it's not as simple as just erecting a concrete wall for 100's of miles. There are ripple effects & for a politician to ignore this would be tantamount to political suicide, not to mention poor leadership. I agree a secure border would provide some amount of infrastructure to make decisions from but the real economic issues will remain & those would need to be addressed eventually.

Racial profiling has become synonymous w/racist. These are different things. Statistics & patterns are useful tools/observations & just because someone recognizes this correlation & wants to leverage it, doesn't make them a racist. Usually, it makes them more a realist than anything else.
I don't like the dismissive nature of the discussion around racial profiling prevalent in our culture. It focuses on all the wrong things rather than the verifiable patterns in the data. This applies to a larger scope of topics than immigration alone.

In general, I don't think hard data is discussed much in television media as it's not "sensational" enough for the medium (or it's deemed "too sensational"). I find with the decline of print media, the existence/prevalence of hard data-driven discussions is also declining. Everything has become a mere philosophical discussion and/or political discussion first, rather than first being a mathematical/data-acquisition discussion, followed by a discussion on what the data means & what to do about it. (philosophical/political).

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Sounds to me like he was.

my bad... I think sealing the border is a necessary condition (like Aheadatime) to even discuss national borders meaningfully but unlike Aheadatime, I don't think it's a sufficient condition.

The very real economic conditions on both sides of the border are significant contributors to creating the "forces" behind immigration. A sealed border provides a means of separating those forces & providing some amount of "counter-force" but if the fundamental forces aren't eventually dealt with, it's unknown whether such a border seal has the "structural integrity" to hold up under a long-term erosion process. Plus it's a costly endeavor to seal the border completely and it doesn't account for human adaptation which is always an unpredictable factor. Maybe it could be argued to be a first logical step since it's primarily a mechanical operation & afterwards now we'd have some measure of choice/control on how to respond to the larger issues.

I'm kind of thinking out loud here.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Zefelius]

This is a typical liberal trick, if you don't agree with us you're racist (especially if you don't like Obama's policies!).

I agree, and that's why I made my point. Although, to be fair, I think both sides often have tricks up their sleeves. Liberals play the race card, and conservatives will just as often play the patriotism card (if you critique Bush you hate America and you want our soldiers to die!).

I haven't researched this thorougly yet, but the Arizona Governor (Brewer) has also signed into law a bill which bans ethnic studies in their public schools. I watched a debate on CNN between their superintendent of public education and a Georgetown professor in which it was painfully obvious that both sides made credible but limited observations. On one side there is a valid concern that these classes teach minorities a specific kind of biased liberal propaganda,and on the other side there is an equally valid observation that sociology and history classes proper don't themselves include all sides of the "American story." Both of the interlocuters were blind, however, to their opponent's claims and concerns! I agree with ElThrasher that pragmatism (i.e., problem solving) is the way to go, and this usually involves a recognition of the fact that truth is hardly ever one-sided. In history classes, for example, there should be more inclusiveness (liberal point) but this inclusiveness shouldn't lend itself to radicalized propaganda in the classroom (conservative point).

[Aheadatime]

Actually thrasher, yes, i recommend just that. Not a giant wall of course, but 'stations' every 50 yards or so like sniper towers (sans snipers obviously) maybe with just simple fencing with barb wire in between these stations. Spot lights, and no, dont search every car that comes across, but peak into the car to see how many are in there, and ask for basic verification. Who cares about the budget/time consuming factor. There is a factor to be had within every solution to be honest.

Take for example the current system of asking people based on skin color. The big factor here is racism, with a hint of police harassment, which could net them losing their job in the way someone pointed out earlier, they are legally required to ask.

Take your method for example. We as a nation cannot convince mexico to 'shape up' and stop ignoring the poor people, and to improve their economic distribution. Nor can we as a nation stop providing basic necessities for people within our own borders, such as jobs, food stamps, homeless shelters, etc. Therefore, the problem cannot be fixed in the fashion you suggested.

Spending money to directly improve our border honestly seems the best option to me. All other money spending will not produce tangible results, but rather will be spent on abstract ideas/policies that may or may not work.

[elthrasher]

Actually thrasher, yes, i recommend just that. Not a giant wall of course, but 'stations' every 50 yards or so like sniper towers (sans snipers obviously) maybe with just simple fencing with barb wire in between these stations. Spot lights, and no, dont search every car that comes across, but peak into the car to see how many are in there, and ask for basic verification. Who cares about the budget/time consuming factor. There is a factor to be had within every solution to be honest.

I'm not an expert, but it seems like if it were just that easy, we'd already be doing this. By the way, the US-Mexico border is just shy of 2000 miles, so a station every 50 yards means you're looking at 35 stations per mile or 69,308 stations in total.

Take your method for example. We as a nation cannot convince mexico to 'shape up' and stop ignoring the poor people, and to improve their economic distribution. Nor can we as a nation stop providing basic necessities for people within our own borders, such as jobs, food stamps, homeless shelters, etc. Therefore, the problem cannot be fixed in the fashion you suggested.

This is plain wrong. America is an economic powerhouse and a global juggernaut. We can convince other nations to do quite a lot by virtue of trade policy and other forms of political pressure. I remember when we (in conjunction with some European nations) ended apartheid in South Africa. It just takes political will.

[Pedal2Metal]

Immigration Relevant articles...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...VXEZAD9FM53100
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237950
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/11-1

I think the Security Tower information was/is posted somewhere on the web but I didn't find it quickly.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ShowtekGER]

has anyone seen the muslim demographics video about islamic immigration to europe on youtube?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

i call this the power of populism

[elthrasher]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237950

Really eloquent point. Well-stated.

[Aheadatime]

I'm not an expert, but it seems like if it were just that easy, we'd already be doing this. By the way, the US-Mexico border is just shy of 2000 miles, so a station every 50 yards means you're looking at 35 stations per mile or 69,308 stations in total.



This is plain wrong. America is an economic powerhouse and a global juggernaut. We can convince other nations to do quite a lot by virtue of trade policy and other forms of political pressure. I remember when we (in conjunction with some European nations) ended apartheid in South Africa. It just takes political will.

Reduce it by 1/3, meaning every 150 yards, and thats only around 23,000 stations. Seems a hefty price tag, but lets be realists. America can spend whatever whenever, regardless of whether or not they have the money. Billions of dollars daily in iraq seems like a better use of money? Billions of dollars on a war against half-legal marijuana better use?

Well if we can just have mexico stop focusing on the rich as much and have them distribute wealth (higher wages, more job opportunities) than why wouldnt we have already? And why wouldnt we have done the same in poverty-struck countries all over the world? Even if we can technically via political will and attention, we just wont, plain and simple. All our government cares about is themselves. In fact trying to get mexico to distribute wealth better coming from us is like a bully trying to preach peace to me, just contradictory and hollow.

[elthrasher]

Reduce it by 1/3, meaning every 150 yards, and thats only around 23,000 stations. Seems a hefty price tag, but lets be realists. America can spend whatever whenever, regardless of whether or not they have the money. Billions of dollars daily in iraq seems like a better use of money? Billions of dollars on a war against half-legal marijuana better use?

No, those don't seem like better uses of money to me, but that is where we are currently dumping a lot of money, so none left for 23,000 stations. If you can come up with the money, the next question is whether or not 23,000 stations would be the worth the money. Presumably you also have to pay people to sit in them. Maybe it would be a good use of stimulus money or something. But would it really curb illegal immigration? I have no idea. I still think there would be lots of ways for people to enter the country as long as there are opportunities for them here and none at home.

Well if we can just have mexico stop focusing on the rich as much and have them distribute wealth (higher wages, more job opportunities) than why wouldnt we have already? And why wouldnt we have done the same in poverty-struck countries all over the world? Even if we can technically via political will and attention, we just wont, plain and simple. All our government cares about is themselves. In fact trying to get mexico to distribute wealth better coming from us is like a bully trying to preach peace to me, just contradictory and hollow.

We haven't had the political will to do that. Basically if the people aren't behind a movement (like we really seriously were in the late 80s when we stopped apartheid), then the politicians aren't going to do much about it. Like I said, it takes political will and that isn't something we have an infinite supply of.

I don't think it's at all bullying to say "your problem (poverty) is becoming our problem (illegal immigration) and we expect you to do something about." After all, this is caused by the failure of the Mexican state. If your neighbor had a termite problem and didn't deal with it and termites spread to your house, you'd probably hold your neighbor responsible (this is not to say that I think of poor people as termites). Mexico isn't being a good neighbor.

[Pedal2Metal]

has anyone seen the muslim demographics video about islamic immigration to europe on youtube?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

i call this the power of populism

Yep, the wildebeest trumps the lion every time.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Aemon Al Caar]

In the words of Scott Adams:

"I see 'Time' more as a magazine. Go ahead and ask me about 'Life'."

[sdu754]

I'm not an expert, but it seems like if it were just that easy, we'd already be doing this. By the way, the US-Mexico border is just shy of 2000 miles, so a station every 50 yards means you're looking at 35 stations per mile or 69,308 stations in total.



This is plain wrong. America is an economic powerhouse and a global juggernaut. We can convince other nations to do quite a lot by virtue of trade policy and other forms of political pressure. I remember when we (in conjunction with some European nations) ended apartheid in South Africa. It just takes political will.

We've tried to help Mexico economically with NAFTA & tons of ecomonic aid, but these options failed. Although I think NAFTA would've worked had Clinton not signed the trade agreement with China giving them most favored nation status.

[sdu754]

I agree, and that's why I made my point. Although, to be fair, I think both sides often have tricks up their sleeves. Liberals play the race card, and conservatives will just as often play the patriotism card (if you critique Bush you hate America and you want our soldiers to die!).

I haven't researched this thorougly yet, but the Arizona Governor (Brewer) has also signed into law a bill which bans ethnic studies in their public schools. I watched a debate on CNN between their superintendent of public education and a Georgetown professor in which it was painfully obvious that both sides made credible but limited observations. On one side there is a valid concern that these classes teach minorities a specific kind of biased liberal propaganda,and on the other side there is an equally valid observation that sociology and history classes proper don't themselves include all sides of the "American story." Both of the interlocuters were blind, however, to their opponent's claims and concerns! I agree with ElThrasher that pragmatism (i.e., problem solving) is the way to go, and this usually involves a recognition of the fact that truth is hardly ever one-sided. In history classes, for example, there should be more inclusiveness (liberal point) but this inclusiveness shouldn't lend itself to radicalized propaganda in the classroom (conservative point).

The history books tend to be written by liberals, which definetly gives them a liberal bias.

Also genaral history books, ones that cover a long time period, tend to have facts in them that are outright wrong or skewed so badly it's hard tio get the truth! A good example is the presidencies of Wilson & Jackson, in high school & even college history books they're made out to be two of the best presidents ever, but if you do some research into them, you find out that they were both amoung the worst. I've read books on all the Presidents individually except Bush jr. & O'bama, because they'd be too biased one way or another.

[ShowtekGER]

Yep, the wildebeest trumps the lion every time.

i don't get it at all.

i tried to google it but the first site that was shown to me is this one. but i sense a slight agreement. a very scary video. but it contains almost no valid statement. i actually thought you may agree with it since you told me in a pm discussion that you think the islam will try to take over the world if i'm not wrong.