No "AZ Immigration BIll" dicussion yet?

[callmeslick]

where did I write that I don't give a fuck? I'm just watching the political maneuvering and wondering where it all is leading.

[ruggbutt]

Actually you do give a fuck. You back the actions of the illegals. You've said as much many times.

[Dawg]

[Reservoir_Dog]

Seriously, what's wrong with having shit loads of illegal immigrants in Arizona?
Think about it. All that new, fresh Mexican blood will help to dilute generations of inbreeding in Arizona. It can only be a good thing.

[callmeslick]

Res aside, here's my take, Ruggie.......
In the 90's into the early 2000's, some folks in DC got the bright idea to build fences and shit in Texas and California to:
1. Seriously curtail the flow of immigrants in those states, and....
2. Win over the voters in two electoral-vote rich places.
At the same time, the rationale was given that, given the extreme conditions in southern New Mexico and Arizona, not that many folks would attempt to cross there. The rationale was wrong.
Thus, you folks in AZ got a flood of immigrants, and due to the increased difficulty factors, those immigrants had to utilize some pretty unsavory types to get here. Thus, you brought along drug gangs and other smuggling experts. Not to mention, in these days of terror threats, it exposed a relatively unprotected access to determined types, especially determined types who grew up in desert environments. Luckily, no one from such regions is out the get the US, right?

Now, where I've differed with you, is how to address the problem. You seem to say, "deport them, all of them". My take is more complex, partly because of sheer cost and difficulty, the other due to a support for the concept of immigration(hell, it's always worked out ok before). I say, crack down big-time on trafficker and any and all criminal activity. Spend 5 times as much than at present on Border Patrol officers down at the Border, not up in an office in Tucson or Phoenix. Send in Nat Guard if need be to interdict drug gangs on either side of the border. Then, provide a path to citizenship for the hardworking folks who already got fucked around just getting here. I mean the ones actually working and producing. Proof of such productivity should be part of the process. Then, gradually weed out or drive back the rest by making marginal day labor and migrant labor hires more difficult. Yeah, Ruggie, my version takes longer to explain, but it serves a few purposes. It doesn't drain the Treasury on a no-win project. It serves the long-term good of the nation. It provides for more security vs. terrorists and hard-core criminals.

Now, you will say that by accepting as citizens a few million that have been here, producing, for years, I am accepting their criminality. If so, so be it. My aim is to be practical, not ideologically rigid. My idea would
actually work, while variations on your theme have never worked.

[ruggbutt]

Before the law was passed the police were not allowed to ask anyone they stopped if they were here legally. Now they are. That's all that's changed. If in the course of a normal traffic stop they catch some illegals, deport them. It's not hard. Yes, you're not gonna catch them all but you are gonna force some of them out of the state (hopefully to Penn where they can increase the crime rate there). I said it before and I'll say it again. You wouldn't be taking the stance you're taking if these people were committing a different crime. If it was child molestation, murder, robbery, etc. you'd say check them when they have interaction with the cops. It's no different than the cops asking the rest of us for our ID so they can check for warrants.

[callmeslick]

Before the law was passed the police were not allowed to ask anyone they stopped if they were here legally. Now they are. That's all that's changed.

I get that. Also, if 70% of the residents support the bill, the Legislature was just doing what they are supposed to do. My question would be defining who gets stopped under what pretenses. And that, I suspect, is going to be settled by the SCOTUS.

If it was child molestation, murder, robbery, etc. you'd say check them when they have interaction with the cops. It's no different than the cops asking the rest of us for our ID so they can check for warrants.

actually, I have big-time issues with cops stopping me, under most any circumstances past caught red-handed committing a crime or the cop having gotten a search warrant with probable cause, from a judge.
Period. I want my police no more involved with ANYONE than that.

[ruggbutt]

actually, I have big-time issues with cops stopping me, under most any circumstances past caught red-handed committing a crime or the cop having gotten a search warrant with probable cause, from a judge.
Period. I want my police no more involved with ANYONE than that.

Unfortunately that's not how it is. You can be stopped in a vehicle for almost any reason. All the cop has to say is that you swerved in your lane a little so he was checking your sobriety. They can check you for driving slow at 2 a.m. in a residential neighborhood, they can say it looked like you were casing a house. But the fact of the matter is that now they can check to see if the guy driving slow in my neighborhood is legal. If he's not, awayyyyyy he goes! Weeeeeeeeee.

[callmeslick]

They'd be talking to my lawyer real damned quick if they tried on truly cheesy grounds. Actually, one did try a year or two back, over the claim that I'd left the turn signal on too long(about 1 mile, at 65 mph). He's no longer a PA state trooper.
Next?

[callmeslick]

bump