I had to look it up

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServe...ecenters460 8

The vast bulk of these "statistics - many of them quoted from a Lou Dobbs show in 2006 and then repeated in endless emails - have been long debunked. Or found to have no or inflated facts backing them up to begin with.

This is a good place to start if you're really serious about having a well-rounded education on the subject:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cos...al-immigrants/

NONE of this means the US should turn a blind eye to others breaking the law, but the subsidy of the undocumented worker class as a way to keep down production costs has long been fact. Unavoidable reality.

If it were not the case, there is really no reason the government would not have acted sooner. It would be to their benefit. Instead, they are protecting corporate profits. Not that I'm against that, but it's the gist of the matter.

Just the "2% work on farms" is a lot of baloney. First off, some of the livestock industry stats I've read have pegged it at 25-50%. An AP story just last year talked about how Vermont dairy farmers count on illegal immigrants to hold down costs - even though noting they are anything but "cheap" (they are cheaper than documented workers).

Second, farm work itself is only a small portion of the labor required to bring food from its origination to your table.

Third, the Arizona bill comes at a time when illegal immigration is on the downswing. This past year there was a drop of some 800,000 illegals. The reason: the US economy is down all around so they're not being hired.

In review: ILLEGAL ALIENS COME TO THE US BECAUSE BUSINESS HERE HIRES THEM. THEY ARE HIRED BECAUSE THEY ARE CHEAPER THAN LEGALIZED WORKERS. THIS SAVES FOOD CORPORATIONS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, IF NOT BILLIONS, OVERALL. EVEN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T WANT TO STEP ON THOSE TOES.

Don't see how it could be any clearer than that.

I'm sure you hear this all the time, but you're an idiot.


Also, glad this law is passed. You'll hardly find moronic liberals in this thread.

Let's look at the law:

1. Federal law already makes it illegal to be in the US without documentation. It merely adds an Arizona statue that doesn't actually do anything Federal law doesn't already provide for.

2. The Arizona law only allows police to validate a person's documentation during the regular course of some other lawful investigation - a citation for jaywalking maybe, or responding to a domestic dispute at some apartment. It doesn't allow police to just stop people for looking Mexican.

3. The law STILL doesn't address the root issue, which is business hiring illegal immigrants.

Ron Reagan understand the complex issues involved when he pushed the immigration amnesty in '86. The man wasn't dumb. He was a very shrewd politician. In the end, other pieces of the law actually increased illegal immigration, but the overall intent was to strike a balance between the tax subsidy of illegals and the cost benefits to corporations (and hopefully the American public).

The Arizona law is just as useful as 2257 is to us. Politicians trying to make a name for themselves. In the end it won't make a lick of difference.

I think the obvious controversy with this law is the implementation and the costs for implementation as well:

Flaws:
-There are plenty of LEGAL residents of the US/AZ in AZ. Many of them have accents and are not white. What are the costs associated with wrongly arresting legal residents? What are the costs associated with all the lawsuits associated with that occurring?

-How come EVERYONE is not required to be carrying their proof of citizenship? Their social security card, birth certificate or what have you? That would then be fair game that anyone could be asked and not profiled. However, proof of citizenship is an important document that you don't want to have lost or stolen. So now Legal residents need to carry around very important, valuable, and private documentation that if lost or stolen is extremely difficult and costly to replace.

-What is this solving for? I live in AZ and have not been negatively impacted by anyone whether legal or illegal. Healthcare in AZ costs less then in other states that have less illegal immigrants. Whenever I go to the Dr. or hospital, I get in, it's not full of illegal immigrants (Actually, I'm pretty sure for the most part they'd prefer to get medical treatment in their own country). I have not met a single person who said they couldn't find a job b/c illegal immigrants were applying for the job they had. Maybe the only valid thing could be border drug violence, but this law does nothing with that, so I'm still at a loss.

if we didn't give them a job they wouldn't be here

Because the flood of illegal immigrants consists primarily of Hispanics, therefore everyone shouldn't need to carry proof of citizenship. Flawed argument.

anchor babies has been in use for very long time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_babies

Or free health care, free food, and their children free citizenship....

It originally referred to Vietnamese refugees. These were referred to as "boat people" because of the boats they'd sail on to get away from the Communists. Anchor - boat, you get the idea.

30% of LEGAL Arizonan's are Hispanic
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html

Pretty sure that technically, everyone over the age of 18 is required to carry ID. If you don't you can be detained until you can prove you are who you say you are.

I think you're missing the point.

Case in point: http://carlosmiller.com/2009/04/30/n...de-courthouse/

I wonder why msnbc and cnn were not in arms about this! Oh yeah, he is white and a libertarian, they dont care about their rights.

I actually had a need to look into this a while back, and surprisingly no. It varies by state. Most states you can walk around fine without your "papers". Florida is one though that, no ID = detained / jailed until you can produce them.

This is not correct. There is no US law that requires you to carry an ID, but many states require that you provide your full, real name to law enforcement when asked in the course of a lawful contact.

A driver's license is not an ID per se, but a permit to drive. It's used by many states as their official identification card, but this doesn't mean you have to carry it if you're not driving.

Your "ID" can be a piece of paper where you've written your name.

So, what state don't you need ID?

Most of them. California for sure. (So you and I are safe; we're both in SoCal, land of the brave and free!!)

A famous Supreme Course case (Hiibel) said that a state could make it a crime for you to not properly identify yourself. No such law exists for not carrying some official ID.

I'd be surprised Florida has a must-carry-ID law. More than likely whatever case was mentioned above had to do with the guy not identifying himself. That's different than carrying ID.

Simply refusing to show a cop ID or give your name can = probs no matter the state I believe.

White or black, or even one of them blue fuckers from Avata!

This is completely not true dude.
If that was the case, they could go to any beach and arrest damn near everyone.

Technically, if you're causing some kind of disturbance and you don't show them an ID if they ask for it, they can take you to jail, as the way it should be.

It depends on which state, of course California has fought it, but in Nevada it is grounds for arrest.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/418803_videoside.html

"in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Nevada law that says cops can bust you for withholding an ID, if they have reasonable suspicion you were involved in a crime."

It falls under "stop and identify" laws.

Phil Gordin is a crook and a dipshit.


http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/val...d_his_girl.php

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/val...ordon_stil.php

And so then they take you to jail. And then they let you out, because it's not a crime (in most states) to not have ID.

That's the thing - people are up in arms about the racial-profiling aspect of this, forgetting that throughout time, cops have, are, and always will pull over or stop anyone they feel like for any reason they believe they can reasonable conjure up and get away with. If you do stuff like be a PITA, don't give ID, etc., they'll then conjure up a reason to arrest you if they feel like. If you were driving, then "dude's breath smelled funny" = reasonable suspicion you were involved in a crime.

I'm quite sure Hispanics have been profiled against in AZ and SoCal for a long time before any talk of a measure like this ever came about. It's not GOOD, but just saying that this isn't exactly going to introduce all that much new into what's already been going on. But to think that cops don't already needlessly fuck with at least some people of ALL races already whenever they feel like it is being in fantasy land. IIRC, wasn't it in AZ recently where that one white guy got his window shattered and him beat the fuck up by a bunch of cops at a checkpoint because he was basically being a pain in the ass?

Exactly. They don't need any more 'Authority' legitimizing the fucked up shit they do.

Pretty simple when the cops are required to stop and check the legal status of 1/3 the population don't be shocked when crime goes up because the cops are too busy to do anything else. Doesn't matter within 25 year hispanics will be the majority in Arizona even if you could get rid of all illegals. By 2020 whites will be under 50% of the population.

WHAT?????
"The measure ? set to take effect in late July or early August ? would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally." <----- LOL

illegally=

"unlawful; illegitimate; illicit; unlicensed. Illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, illicit, criminal can all describe actions not in accord with law."

I wonder where the authorities got this idea?

http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/200...azi-papers.jpg

http://troutsoup.com/img/yourpapersplease.jpg

I think the nazis got it from the Romans dude :thumbsup

So lets get this right.....

You support the IRS checking your (someone who has not broken a law) health care papers EVERY MONTH

But do not support someone who commits a crime needing to prove they are a citizen?


Only if I could have the twisted mind of a progressive.

The article is wrong, and Nevada has no such law. The Hiibel case was around whether the plaintiff was required to identify himself, not produce ID.

From the Wiki page on stop and identify statues (which also properly cites the exact statements made by the Nevada and US Courts):

"The Court understood the Nevada statute to mean that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name."

Az is the only state that has had a representative with some backbone to take action. Janet Napalatano did nothing about the borders and now she is head of homeland security.....we are in big trouble.

Things are changing........:thumbsup

Why the fuck would the IRS be wasting time & resources looking at "health care papers"? Unless it's related to some sort of tax fraud case.

Let go of the paranoia..... it's okay..... the government is not out to get you. And if they are, you'll know it. There won't be any subtleties to it when they are actually 'after you'.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Apparently you have not read the health care bill :1orglaugh

It hinges on probable cause. The Arizona statute does not allow detention simply because someone looks like they are an illegal. They can only question the status if there is some kind of "reasonable" suspicion the individual is an illegal, but the law provides no hint at how police are to arrive at this conclusion.

Arizona does not have a law that says everyone must carry some kind of ID that would satisfy the inquiry of a person's residency. They have only this:

"It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime." <rest snipped>

So technically, everyone in AZ must now carry some form of documentation that could be used to prove residency, in case they are stopped by police. Unless they want to be charged with racial profiling, which is against federal law, they have to ask everyone.

Forgetting the large native American population with brown skin (gee, are they here legally?), some of the oldest families on grant lands in AZ are of Hispanic descent. Their families may have lived there for 150 years, yet now they have to carry documentation that proves their legal residency.

In all, it's a stupid law that totally misses the point, muddies the real problem, and sets us back in time, money, and effort.

Meg Whitman, a smart lady likely the next governor of CA (and a Republican) says she thinks there are better ways of handling the problem. I'm quite sure she's right.

I have not read it in detail, no. But I know how the IRS functions on an intimate level, and I'm telling you.... they don't fucking care what's on your 'health care papers'.

Not now, they dont start caring until 2014. So you are right, as of today they dont, come 2014 they will. And you will have to prove to them that you have "acceptable" health insurance.