Why would anyone in their right minds make arguments against sealing the border

[teamosil]

In Maricopa county about 1/3 of people in jail are illegals, I would call that a respectable spike.

People keep saying that, but the actual stat says it's 16%... And, keep in mind that Maricopa county is Arpaio's county. He is completely obsessed with illegal immigration. To the extent where many people are alleging that he is diverting so many resources from general law enforcement to his racial profiling sweeps that crime not committed by hispanics is basically running amok. For example, he is only solving half as many non-immigration crimes a year as his predecessor did... You can't use the percentage of people he has locked up as an indication of the quantity of crime committed by that community at all. All it indicates really is where his priorities are.

 

[cholla]

Mexico is indeed having extreme problems containing the drug war. The budget of the drug cartels is literally several times greater than the budget of their entire military. Any and all help the US wants to offer in fighting that war, I would support, and any efforts required to keep it from spilling over onto our soil absolutely is required.

But, conflating that with immigration policy is not reasonable. They are two distinct issues that require very different approaches. Lumping together families looking for a better life with drug cartels absolutely does not make sense. Many of the illegal immigrants are immigrating here precisely because they are fleeing the drug cartels.

Link please

The notion that Mexico is encouraging illegal immigration to the US is completely false. The opposite is true. They are enacting severe policies to try to stem the flow of people through Mexico to the US, and they are at their wits end trying to Mexican citizens from emigrating from Mexico to the US. Generally speaking, the people who they are losing tend to be more skilled and economically valuable.

Where do you get this stuff? Please show something to support your claim.

They see it as a loss of a valuable resource and they've been fighting against that for a long time. NAFTA, for example, was largely percieved in Mexico as a way to stop people emigrating from Mexico to the US. Create more opportunity in Mexico and people won't feel that they need to go to the US to find it. Really, the ultimate solution to illegal immigration into the US would be to bolster the economy of Mexico so things aren't so desperate there that people are willing to leave even if it means being an outlaw.



It's actually 10 million. It peaked at about 12 million in 2007 and has been falling since then.



I don't think anybody disagrees that that is the ideal state, but we don't want to get into a medicine that is worse than the disease situation either. To absolutely enforce immigration law 100% would bankrupt the US and mean abandoning all constitutional rights for all citizens. We currently spend $36 billion a year and abridge some constitutional rights to fight illegal immigration. The question isn't "should we enforce immigration law?", it is "how much are we willing to sacrifice in an attempt to tighten up enforcement of immigration law and what is the best way to do it?"

Really, You don't think this might be a little over the top.

 

[cholla]

People keep saying that, but the actual stat says it's 16%... And, keep in mind that Maricopa county is Arpaio's county. He is completely obsessed with illegal immigration. To the extent where many people are alleging that he is diverting so many resources from general law enforcement to his racial profiling sweeps that crime not committed by hispanics is basically running amok. For example, he is only solving half as many non-immigration crimes a year as his predecessor did... You can't use the percentage of people he has locked up as an indication of the quantity of crime committed by that community at all. All it indicates really is where his priorities are.

I live in Maricopa county, I am well aware of Arapios philosophies regarding illegals. If you want to be taken seriously on this subject, I think you should start linking some sources. Liberal opinions are easy to spout, but don't do much to reinforce an argument.

 

[teamosil]

Link please

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/us/18border.html

Where do you get this stuff? Please show something to support your claim.

Your side of the debate made the claim that Mexico is actively encouraging illegal immigration to the US, but has been unable to find a source backing that claim up.

http://www.sandiego.edu/peacestudies/documents/tbi/mexico_about_migration.pdf

Really, You don't think this might be a little over the top.

To catch every illegal immigrant? No, I don't think that is over the top. You would need to be doing house to house searches, some sort of mandatory DNA database, no habeus corpus... I mean, even with all the stops of any kind pulled out, you couldn't really catch every illegal immigrant...

 

[teamosil]

I live in Maricopa county, I am well aware of Arapios philosophies regarding illegals. If you want to be taken seriously on this subject, I think you should start linking some sources. Liberal opinions are easy to spout, but don't do much to reinforce an argument.

Phoenix Mayor Gordon calls for <br> FBI investigation of Arpaio
Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution - Page 1 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times
Inhumanity Has a Price - Page 1 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times
'New Times' executives sue Arpaio
Another Plot Against Tough Sheriff, With a Twist - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1256030230-RsAxcreWUTu/BBRSmhW1Kw
Sheriff Arpaio Sued Over Racial Profiling Of Latinos In Maricopa County | American Civil Liberties Union
Sheriff's Cover-up? - Page 1 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times
Sheriff Joe Arpaio&#146;s Command Staff is Caught Up in a Serious Criminal Investigation, Newly Released Documents Show - Page 1 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times

 

[cholla]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/us/18border.html

I'll conceed here.


Your side of the debate made the claim that Mexico is actively encouraging illegal immigration to the US, but has been unable to find a source backing that claim up.

http://www.sandiego.edu/peacestudies/documents/tbi/mexico_about_migration.pdf

This study was released in 05, before the current administration was elected, does not prove that they are or are not doing anything at all. Might have some bearing on the previous administration, not sure.


To catch every illegal immigrant? No, I don't think that is over the top. You would need to be doing house to house searches, some sort of mandatory DNA database, no habeus corpus... I mean, even with all the stops of any kind pulled out, you couldn't really catch every illegal immigrant...

No, I am refering to this quote

I don't think anybody disagrees that that is the ideal state, but we don't want to get into a medicine that is worse than the disease situation either. To absolutely enforce immigration law 100% would bankrupt the US and mean abandoning all constitutional rights for all citizens. We currently spend $36 billion a year and abridge some constitutional rights to fight illegal immigration. The question isn't "should we enforce immigration law?", it is "how much are we willing to sacrifice in an attempt to tighten up enforcement of immigration law and what is the best way to do it?"

 

[teamosil]

No, I am refering to this quote

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about when I said:

To catch every illegal immigrant? No, I don't think that is over the top. You would need to be doing house to house searches, some sort of mandatory DNA database, no habeus corpus... I mean, even with all the stops of any kind pulled out, you couldn't really catch every illegal immigrant...

Trying to catch every illegal immigratn would require taking all those kinds of steps- house to house searches, some sort of mandatory DNA database, no habeus corpus. That means abandoning our constitutional rights, no?

 

[cholla]

Phoenix Mayor Gordon calls for <br> FBI investigation of Arpaio

This has been completed and nothing was found wrong.

Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution - Page 1 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times
Inhumanity Has a Price - Page 1 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times


'New Times' executives sue Arpaio

New Times again

Another Plot Against Tough Sheriff, With a Twist - NYTimes.com

Another one dismissed 2 years ago


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1256030230-RsAxcreWUTu/BBRSmhW1Kw

Has nothing to due with illegals or sealing the border.

Sheriff Arpaio Sued Over Racial Profiling Of Latinos In Maricopa County | American Civil Liberties Union
Sheriff's Cover-up? - Page 1 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Command Staff is Caught Up in a Serious Criminal Investigation, Newly Released Documents Show - Page 1 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times

More New Times garbage

New Times = liberal rag, the only ones here who read it are the dope smoking crowd at ASU


I am not seeing where anything you have posted has any relevance to the current situation here. And yes, I am dismissing the New Times as irrelevant and biased.

 

[deltabtry]

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about when I said:

Trying to catch every illegal immigratn would require taking all those kinds of steps- house to house searches, some sort of mandatory DNA database, no habeus corpus. That means abandoning our constitutional rights, no?

I don't think the right is suggesting this at all, we all know this can not be done. What we can do is go after the employers and fine them heavily, that said we can also in the process of this vet those who are caught and if proven to be successful and have assimilated start a work visa or to including citizenship. Now those who haven't crossed but intend to illegally, this is when we come down with a heavy hand. Now we do need to stream line our immigration policy so it doesn't take years to become one.

 

[cholla]

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about when I said:



Trying to catch every illegal immigratn would require taking all those kinds of steps- house to house searches, some sort of mandatory DNA database, no habeus corpus. That means abandoning our constitutional rights, no?

Yes it would, but reading back over this thread I find that YOU were the one that brought up catching every illegal, a straw argument there.

BTW, did you forget about this one?

Originally Posted by teamosil
Well, we probably need to be more precise. In terms of actual border protection, you are correct. Somebody trying to cross the border illegally is very likely not a citizen. We don't know that for absolutely certain though. Many coyotes are actually citizens or legal residents for example. But, yeah, I don't think we need to afford people physically crossing the border constitutional rights. And they aren't. But, human rights still certainly apply. Certainly killing people outside of a real war and outside of the rule of law is not something we as a country believe in. A couple people have advocated that on this thread, and that is absolutely morally unacceptable to me.

But, where the constitution comes in to play is the attempts to find and oust illegal immigrants inside the US. Still in that scenario the illegal immigrant themselves don't have constitutional rights, but in order to get to the illegal immigrant they need to cut through the civil rights of a ton of citizens first. 90% of hispanics in AZ, for example, are citizens or legal residents, but many of the laws AZ is passing under the guise of attacking illegal immigration and the actions of Sheriff Arpaio (who is sheriff of 60% of the population) dramatically curtail the civil rights of the hispanic citizens. That is, by far, my top concern.


I call BS on the bolded areas, You will have to link to something responsible to prove those.

 

[teamosil]

I don't think the right is suggesting this at all, we all know this can not be done.

Yes it would, but reading back over this thread I find that YOU were the one that brought up catching every illegal, a straw argument there.

That's my point. It is not a question of "should we enforce immigration law?" It already is being enforced at one level, it can never be absolutely enforced 100%, so the real question isn't a yes/no question, it is a question of how far we want to go. How much we want to spend, what, if any, constitutional rights we are willing to give up, etc. Everybody agrees that we should enforce immigration law, where people differ is on how high it should be on our list of priorities, how much we should spend on it, how it balances out against civil rights, what the best approach is, etc. The whole debate would be a lot better if people specified exactly what they are advocating we do rather than just advocating for the position that "we should enforce immigration law".

 

[teamosil]

I call BS on the bolded areas, You will have to link to something responsible to prove those.

Many coyotes are actually citizens or legal residents for example

This one is hard to know how I would even go about looking it up and it's not a major point in my argument anyways. I'm conceding that the constitution doesn't really apply to people as they're crossing the border despite that, so the impact of that statement is basically nill.

But, my thinking is that the most common scenario for a coyote is that they drive across the border in a truck of some kind with illegal immigrants hidden in the back, so to do that they would need their papers in order.

90% of hispanics in AZ, for example, are citizens or legal residents

Arizona has just under 2 million hispanics living there total, and 283 thousand illegal immigrants. So, it's actually 86% of the hispanics in AZ are citizens or legal residents.

 

[cholla]

This one is hard to know how I would even go about looking it up

You brought up this argument all by yourself, now I call you on it and its not a major point?

and it's not a major point in my argument anyways. I'm conceding that the constitution doesn't really apply to people as they're crossing the border despite that, so the impact of that statement is basically nill.

But, my thinking is that the most common scenario for a coyote is that they drive across the border in a truck of some kind with illegal immigrants hidden in the back, so to do that they would need their papers in order.



Arizona has just under 2 million hispanics living there total, and 283 thousand illegal immigrants. So, it's actually 86% of the hispanics in AZ are citizens or legal residents.

Using your link for hispanic population shows that it is from 2008 while your site for illegals is from 2000, if you look up apples to apples USATODAY.com - Arizona's Hispanic population grew by 88%

Then the percentage is 78 % legal 22% illegal.

Seems as if you are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

 

[teamosil]

Using your link for hispanic population shows that it is from 2008 while your site for illegals is from 2000, if you look up apples to apples USATODAY.com - Arizona's Hispanic population grew by 88%

Then the percentage is 78 % legal 22% illegal.

Seems as if you are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

Hmm, ok. I didn't realize the hispanic population was growing so quickly there. You're right then, it's about 78% of the hispanic population that is legal citizens, not 90%. Although, actually that's not quite true, since some percentage of the illegal immigrants are not hispanic. Nationwide, about 1/3 are not hispanic, but I'd bet it's a much higher percentage hispanic in AZ than nationwide.

Regardless though, the vast majority of people effected by these laws are still hispanic citizens whether it is 78% or 90%.