wow, this thread got a whole lot better. mmmm hmmm
I love Ron Paul.
“…legalizing the entry of more low-skilled immigrants would result in economic gains of about $180 billion annually to U.S. households. A focus on more enforcement alone would not only result in an annual net economic loss of around $80 billion, say the authors, but fewer jobs, less investment and lower levels of consumption as well.”
online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 12588.html
“Despite Rhetoric, Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States”
foxbusiness.com/story/market … -rhetoric/
“Effect of Immigration on Jobs, Wages Is Difficult for Economists to Nail Down”
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 686_2.html
^^those look like interesting articles Emmet… when I have a little time and can pull myself away from staring at the V chick I will give them a read and report back with my retort. 
haha I kid… I do want to read them… I find it interesting to actually find what might be the truth because, and you know this is especially true in anything political, most reports presented to us are colored with subjectivity.
Ok I think I’m heading to the mall and to practice my racial profiling skills. see ya! 
They are not suggesting illegal immigrants already here be granted amnesty… they are just talking reforming laws to make it easier for low-skilled workers to immigrate. Sounds like a great idea.
the second article is really good… what gives then? if the immigrants are a boon to the labor force as the article says than why are the people of the state turning such a harsh and blind eye to the benefits? Is the answer simply they are brain-washed by their politicians?.. it just makes me wonder what the whole story is. I don’t believe the law is not politically motivated as I said earlier… John McCain trying to fire up his base etc… on the other hand there are people truly fired up about the illegal status of these people… seems to me the answer is in Washington… reform the immigration laws, make it easier for low-skilled labor to enter… than a state like AZ who implements such a law will have less impact because there will be less illegals… and with less of the immigrants being illegal I think there would be less public support for such laws… I mean… are the majority in this country against immigration or illegal immigration?.. I think once we take the illegal part out of the equation things would improve and this whole issue would quite down… hell I’m probably wrong but whateva… anyway good articles emmet…
Well if you look at this thread you can see there are a lot of different arguments to be made. I read recently a pretty persuasive argument that all low-wage labor, immigrant or US-born, is a drain on resources. I wish I could find it, and post it. It may be truthful, and points out a clear problem with America and where low-wage workers stand as citizens. You have to have dishwashers and lawn-mowers for businesses to function. Everyone can’t be the CEO. It is clear display of how business in America has evolved into a system that tends to extract value from it’s productive elements and remove that wealth from the economy.
Part of the demand for illegal labor has to do with businesses who view low-income workers as disposable. They do not pay them wages they can live on. They don’t seek to create long term employees with expertise that can produce valuable goods and services and prosper. By seeking to keep labor costs (wages) down in order to make the books look better, they contribute to a low skilled workforce that doesn’t have respect or gratitude for their employment. Illegal workers are a dream because they are used to 3rd world living conditions and even lower wages so they work harder at jobs Americans don’t want.
I say this from my experience working as a low wage employee for 15 years in restaurants in Indianapolis where the Latino population exploded in the 90’s and 2000’s - equivalent or more so that Arizona (look it up…).
So… let’s think about this from a politicians point of view… Do you want to say to business people in the US you have to stop hiring cheap illegal labor, and you have to realize that your low wage workers are an integral part of your business and we ultimately benefit by fostering a prosperous mentality towards business where the higher up sacrifice some of their income to maintain a solid workforce on the lower levels? Do you want to side with the poor people or the rich people?
Do you want to go out and say “Hey, you have some responsibility to make decisions that benefit all people, because that is the pathway to sustainable prosperity.”
Or say: “Capitalism is justice, seek profit and all will be taken care of. If it doesn’t work it’s someone else’s fault.”
Then demonize an out-group (immigrants) as the cause of the problems and tell people you are going to get “tough” with harsher laws. That will show them! Regardless of whether or not this is effective (and who thinks it really will be), this is a time tested technique of mass manipulation. Many people have a tendency to disregard reality when an authority (political leaders, “experts”) give them the go ahead to attack a group of “others”.
So there’s a lot of problems with business in America, illegal labor being one of them. I think it’s obvious to me that the problem rests more in the hands of the demand than the supply. Here we are with massive unemployment, yet business tend to hire people who can’t even speak English before hiring legal American citizens… and we are going to blame the immigrants and shout “BUT IT’S THE LAW!!” ?
So I wouldn’t say that making it easier for immigrants to come here is the answer, but some solution is needed. I think the reason amnesty ends up happening is because businesses have profited from illegal labor for so long that it has become institutionalized in American culture, and the only way to change that would be a concentrated authority-led effort to “de-latinize” parts of the country, and that’s what this law in Arizona is about. So do you think this “tough on immigration” law and the action around it is going to be effective? If not, what would be tougher?
Havn’t read the whole thread yet, but here is my own take fwiw. Since the smoking ban in Michigan, people have to go outside to smoke. If 7 or more folks are smoking outside it now becomes an "unlawful assembly’. If Michigan were to follow the Arizona example, then the po-po could theoretically roll up on any group of smokers under the guise of checking papers to shake people down. Who wants to get frisked at the bar? Not I.
It seems to me that things like medical weed are a smokescreen to dumb people from awareness that their civil liberties are going up in smoke.
Under this law they wouldn’t have to be assembling unlawfully. They just have to look Hispanic.
Hey good post emmet… thanks for the reply. You raise many good points… all of which are thinking points rather than talking points. I’m not so sure we can put so much blame on big business for this problem but it certainly doesn’t help. Its too big a carrot for both sides… and I don’t think hiring 40,000 legal seasonal lettuce pickers is going to take this country out of its recession. According to the articles you posted and some of the thoughts here in this thread there is the idea of cracking down harder on businesses who hire illegals… I assume that is Washington’s responsibility… and where I tend to lean towards the free-market I don’t lean towards illegal free-market… the law applies to business and worker alike.
If these companies did not have the option of hiring illegals and illegals not the option of working for them these companies would find a way to get their lettuce picked. It may take a while to work out the kinks and lettuce may be expensive for a while… or we have no lettuce for a while… but they would figure it out. maybe I’m oversimplifying it but… well… I’m just not that smart. 
Cripes I didn’t go to Harvard after all! What do you want from mediocre intelligence! so LAY OFF 
::cries self to sleep for a few minutes::
Ok… I’m awake…So you believe this law is about “de-latinizing” AZ. I don’t know, maybe it is… however I think it is too easy to get behind a law that is doing nothing more than upholding the law. Find me where this law is unlawful? I say that sincerely. There is an awful lot of whining about this law and boycotts etc… (you remember when ppl were boycotting Coors? haha boycotts are fun but do they really ever work?.. its like sanctions on Iran or N. Korea… yeah… I digress) but whining doesn’t get laws overturned. There needs to be a legal process at work here. I want you to all understand I am not gung ho for this law nor do I really believe it will fix illegal immigration in AZ. But there are a lot of people that will be for laws like this because it enforces the law… so that is a problem… and again it is why there seems the need for reform from top down… not the other way. AZ taking this problem into its own hands seems to be a failure of the feds to do the job. Again… my naive perspective.
But I think a lot of people just find it unethical; hence the boycotts.
Cool, thanks zoot. I don’t necessarily disagree that the law is unethical… however ethics don’t decide court cases right? I mean if there is enough outrage over something that may be enough for the conflict to be brought to a court for a decision but the judge will, or atleast should, uphold the law…
In anycase, the problem I see with what you quoted is this: are illegal aliens under the constitution? How is that going to fly? Won’t that be the first thing retorted if this is used as basis for a repeal?
Has anyone checked out Mexico, China or India’s Immigration policies??
Talk about a police state…Yet here is the Mexican president today speaking against Arizona???
Hey, fix your own draconian immigration laws before you start pointing fingers tyrant.
Then you have a friend here. RAND PAUL WINS KY PRIMARY AND WILL TROUNCE ANYONE WHO RUNS AGAINST HIM IN THE GENERAL.
It’s sooooo funny, these guys on MSNBC were saying Rand Paul is fringe because he’s anti war and anti Patriot Act. 
Now classic liberals and classic conservatives who are anti war and anti patriot act are right wing wackos!!
Gotta love the establishment.
It will most likely be brought to court by a Hispanic citizen who feels that they were unfairly targeted and harassed. Not sure how cut and dry the law is but this is interesting:
He’s fringe because he wants to repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act because it’s unfriendly to business. He’s also anti-government regulation unless you’re talking about homosexuality or abortion. Oh and he wants to eliminate the Department of Education and corporate income taxes. I thought you were against corporate hegemony…
By the way, he held his acceptance speech in a members only country club. What a populist.
But, I got to hand it to the douchebag. He just put a once unthinkable Kentucky senate seat in play for the democrats. 
Well that there is the crux of this thread right? Regardless of ones legal status enforcement officers are bound by it and don’t have legal grounds to question based on race. If it is found that is happening than damn straight the law should be repealed. This law can’t become an excuse to break other laws… thats just stupidity. I can understand the fear of that happening (and I’m not blind to the reality…) but then the only way to deal with it is thru the courts… not sure where Washington would step in…
In anycase don’t let me ruin y’alls AZ bashing party 
If it gets fun I may even join in and throw a few eggs… or like… pee on an AZ sign or something lol… no no I’ll knock on AZ door and leave a pile of flaming poo on their border. 
just playing around…
by zoot horn rollo » 19 May 2010 17:02
lawnboy357 wrote:
Havn’t read the whole thread yet, but here is my own take fwiw. Since the smoking ban in Michigan, people have to go outside to smoke. If 7 or more folks are smoking outside it now becomes an "unlawful assembly’. If Michigan were to follow the Arizona example, then the po-po could theoretically roll up on any group of smokers under the guise of checking papers to shake people down. Who wants to get frisked at the bar? Not I.
It seems to me that things like medical weed are a smokescreen to dumb people from awareness that their civil liberties are going up in smoke.
Under this law they wouldn’t have to be assembling unlawfully. They just have to look Hispanic
I thought about that also. That means there will be multiple jurisprudential justifications for the aforementioned shakedowns. 
I will debunk all of those establishment talking points soon my old friend. I’m chillin with the wife right now though.
You love Rand Paul you just don’t know it yet.
[But just repeating the talking points of the day over and over isn’t fun. Also throwing out non vetted (is that the right word) rumors does nothing to advance the conversation IMO.
I heard from an older swede that Sweden used to chemically castrate gypsies. This was a top secret program that was used to combat illegals and undesirable people from taking advantage of Sweden’s social programs in the next generation. That should be vetted enough. Utopian perception clouds everybody’s concepts of “well run” nation/state models. . Some places take immigration real seriously. Plus in every foreign country I’ve been fortunate to visit (south of the 15th Parallel N ) I have routinely had my papers checked. That’s a kind of funny global dichotomy. Where generally in less desirable places there is a stricter border guard. In England they assume your papers are in order from the airport or Chunnel. While in Africa, Asia, and Latin America they will stop you at any time to see your passport.
If they just relabeled the damn law to something more p.c. like caucasion verification stops, or emission checks. This would be a non-issue.