Looks like it's because of the new law:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/28/schools-immigrant-families-leaving-arizona-because-of-new-immigration-law/
It's Arizona's loss.
Quote from: nathanm on May 29, 2010, 06:28:08 PM
It's Arizona's loss.
I'm sure Arizonans will miss the kidnappings, rapes, murders, and general freeloading illegals brought to their state.
Comb your hair!
Quote from: guido911 on May 29, 2010, 06:52:13 PM
I'm sure Arizonans will miss the kidnappings, rapes, murders, and general freeloading illegals brought to their state.
Completely untrue. But people like you will keep on believing the fear mongering and hate speech that continues to spew from the usual suspects...
From the Wall Street Journal, a conservative publication:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704113504575264432463469618.html
In Phoenix, police spokesman Trent Crump said, "Despite all the hype, in every single reportable crime category, we're significantly down." Mr. Crump said Phoenix's most recent data for 2010 indicated still lower crime. For the first quarter of 2010, violent crime was down 17% overall in the city, while homicides were down 38% and robberies 27%, compared with the same period in 2009.
Arizona's major cities all registered declines. A perceived rise in crime is one reason often cited by proponents of a new law intended to crack down on illegal immigration. The number of kidnappings reported in Phoenix, which hit 368 in 2008, was also down, though police officials didn't have exact figures. The Arizona Republic has also recently reported that the AZ border towns are seeing their lowest violent crime rates in a decade.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html
Looks like the GOP, teabaggers, and their followers will just have to come up with a new,
valid reason for hating the 'illegal immigrants'.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 31, 2010, 07:13:13 PM
Looks like the GOP, teabaggers, and their followers will just have to come up with a new, valid reason for hating the 'illegal immigrants'.
It's OK. They'll just have a little chronological difficulty and make the claim that the law reduced crime. Sort of like they claim St. Reagan's policies caused changes that were already in progress before he even took office.
Wasn't there some country back in the 30s that blamed all their problems on another minority? I seem to recall that many of the same arguments about crime were made then, and as acts of violence against these people increased, those that had the means left for other, less intolerant nations. For instance, substitute 'Hispanic' or 'Mexican' for key words in this piece about The Jewish Problem:
The Jewish Question is as old as the history of Jewry itself. From the days of antiquity to the present, the peoples have always risen up to defend themselves against Jewish parasitism. The defense was often bloody. Greater Germany is the first country in the world to find a legal way to separate from the alien Jewish people. In contrast to the views of the last century, and of the so-called democrats of today, National Socialism sees the Jewish Question not as a religions problem, but rather as a racial question.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#Antisem (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#Antisem)
The modern anti-Hispanic sentiment is not a whit different from the anti-Semitic hatred in Germany.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 31, 2010, 07:13:13 PM
Completely untrue. But people like you will keep on believing the fear mongering and hate speech that continues to spew from the usual suspects...
From the Wall Street Journal, a conservative publication:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704113504575264432463469618.html
In Phoenix, police spokesman Trent Crump said, "Despite all the hype, in every single reportable crime category, we're significantly down." Mr. Crump said Phoenix's most recent data for 2010 indicated still lower crime. For the first quarter of 2010, violent crime was down 17% overall in the city, while homicides were down 38% and robberies 27%, compared with the same period in 2009.
Arizona's major cities all registered declines. A perceived rise in crime is one reason often cited by proponents of a new law intended to crack down on illegal immigration. The number of kidnappings reported in Phoenix, which hit 368 in 2008, was also down, though police officials didn't have exact figures.
The Arizona Republic has also recently reported that the AZ border towns are seeing their lowest violent crime rates in a decade.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html
Looks like the GOP, teabaggers, and their followers will just have to come up with a new, valid reason for hating the 'illegal immigrants'.
There is truth to this, and alot of it started when the housing bubble burst and the the fall in the economy were the first contributing factors to them leaving. The construction jobs went then with the the bail outs and companies rethinking annual company gatherings at the resorts here were just the first domino's to fall.
I would also dare to say that the drop in violence among the border towns along the AZ/Mexico border is the fact that the state of Sonora wants our tourism dollars for all of the people that travel to Rocky Point/Puerto Penasco.
http://www.puerto-penasco.com/ (http://www.puerto-penasco.com/)
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 31, 2010, 08:26:32 PM
There is truth to this, and alot of it started when the housing bubble burst and the the fall in the economy were the first contributing factors to them leaving.
Your thoughts seem unclear on this. Were the illegal aliens who left because of a lack of work working or were they murdering and kidnapping? Or are the two things actually completely unrelated since the set of illegal immigrants who come here to work are completely different than the set who come here in the employ of drug cartels?
Quote from: nathanm on May 31, 2010, 08:53:07 PM
Your thoughts seem unclear on this. Were the illegal aliens who left because of a lack of work working or were they murdering and kidnapping? Or are the two things actually completely unrelated since the set of illegal immigrants who come here to work are completely different than the set who come here in the employ of drug cartels?
Sorry if my thoughts are unclear, but it is all intertwined. You have the coyotes bringing the illegals into AZ, and there is a network of people here to work them into living here. The same coyotes are also smugglining drugs into the US at the same time. The coyotes also have a network of stolen identities and sales of cars that the illegals purchase and drive thinking they may not be caught. You can say and the facts prove that many of the illegals want a better life, and most do, but many are just looking for money. Some of the people who come across illegaly are looking to steal to further the trade of human smuggling and drug smuggling. It does not matter to them the cost to us.
I would like to see the change in crime statistics with the decline that has been posted, as to the number of illegals commiting crimes as opposed to the number of US citizens commiting crimes.
Can't cure the disease treating the symptoms(illegals). Gotta treat the cause (invitation issued by corporate America).
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 31, 2010, 08:26:32 PM
I would also dare to say that the drop in violence among the border towns along the AZ/Mexico border is the fact that the state of Sonora wants our tourism dollars for all of the people that travel to Rocky Point/Puerto Penasco.
http://www.puerto-penasco.com/ (http://www.puerto-penasco.com/)
In reality there was never a 'drop in violence' along the border towns. There has never been a high crime rate on the US side of the border- and in fact crime statistics show that many border towns are actually among some of the safest communities in the nation.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 31, 2010, 11:07:22 PM
In reality there was never a 'drop in violence' along the border towns. There has never been a high crime rate on the US side of the border- and in fact crime statistics show that many border towns are actually among some of the safest communities in the nation.
Yes because of their proximatey to the US and their want of US currency they will try to quell the problems, as long as those from the US stay in the "Safe Areas".
Sonora wil bend over backwards to provide a safe enviroment for US citizens vacationing there. I will admit I would love to go to RP for a load of shrimp, let alone the food. But you have to admit that there are areas of RP that you are on your own.
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 31, 2010, 11:39:52 PM
Yes because of their proximatey to the US and their want of US currency they will try to quell the problems, as long as those from the US stay in the "Safe Areas".
Sonora wil bend over backwards to provide a safe enviroment for US citizens vacationing there. I will admit I would love to go to RP for a load of shrimp, let alone the food. But you have to admit that there are areas of RP that you are on your own.
I meant there is very little crime on the
US side of the border. Nearly all of the violent crime happens on the Mexico side and is almost exclusively isolated to the warring drug factions.
Honestly I spend a lot of time in Mexico, and if you are not involved with the drug cartel, or anyone they may want to mess with, you are fine. I am all over Rocky Point quite often and have never felt anything but perfectly safe no matter where I am. Of course there are parts of the country that should be avoided, just like in the states. For instance, I avoid Texas like the plague ;D
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 31, 2010, 10:36:49 PM
Sorry if my thoughts are unclear, but it is all intertwined. You have the coyotes bringing the illegals into AZ, and there is a network of people here to work them into living here. The same coyotes are also smugglining drugs into the US at the same time. The coyotes also have a network of stolen identities and sales of cars that the illegals purchase and drive thinking they may not be caught. You can say and the facts prove that many of the illegals want a better life, and most do, but many are just looking for money. Some of the people who come across illegaly are looking to steal to further the trade of human smuggling and drug smuggling. It does not matter to them the cost to us.
I would like to see the change in crime statistics with the decline that has been posted, as to the number of illegals commiting crimes as opposed to the number of US citizens commiting crimes.
OK, I guess I wasn't particularly clear, either. Why would the violent people care if the nonviolent illegal immigrants left the area? I'm not understanding how driving mostly law abiding people out reduces the violent crime rate?
Quote from: nathanm on June 01, 2010, 01:49:59 AM
OK, I guess I wasn't particularly clear, either. Why would the violent people care if the nonviolent illegal immigrants left the area? I'm not understanding how driving mostly law abiding people out reduces the violent crime rate?
The violent people (coyotes human smugglers) don't care. The people that they bring here have paid them hundreds if not thousands of dollars. If they think that there is more money to be had, they will hold the illegals for ransom to get more money. The people held will ask those that are already here for more money, and these crimes usually go unreported. There is so much that goes unreported now that the new law can't touch. At least twice a month Maricopa County Sherriff's or local PD find drop houses with 50 to 80 people inside the house without water, food, and hidden by boarded up windows to keep the illegals in the house.
I like the fact that there has to be some sort of major fear mongering with every "Republican" stance. You don't have to be a total doucher about everything sheesh.
1) People are here illegally
2) There are people trying to actual legally immigrate (not fair to them)
3) They DO cost for government services, schooling in particular
4) A crap load of the money made leaves the US (not even taxed with sales tax)
5) They probably aren't paying income taxes (although, their income might be in the more money than you pay bracket)
6) If you don't have health insurance just go to the emergency room because they have to see you.'
7) All the "violent people" and the coyotes holding hostages, wouldn't be an issue if they couldn't get here in the first place.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 01, 2010, 10:02:24 AM
I like the fact that there has to be some sort of major fear mongering with every "Republican" stance. You don't have to be a total doucher about everything sheesh.
1) People are here illegally
2) There are people trying to actual legally immigrate (not fair to them)
3) They DO cost for government services, schooling in particular
4) A crap load of the money made leaves the US (not even taxed with sales tax)
5) They probably aren't paying income taxes (although, their income might be in the more money than you pay bracket)
6) If you don't have health insurance just go to the emergency room because they have to see you.'
7) All the "violent people" and the coyotes holding hostages, wouldn't be an issue if they couldn't get here in the first place.
You don't see that with Democrat initiatives and pet causes as well?
Global warming, er "climate change", health care, banking reform, etc. ad nauseum?
It's all about creating fear by GOP & Dem politicians to make government intervention in every facet of our lives seem essential, that's how they retain power.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 01, 2010, 10:02:24 AM
I like the fact that there has to be some sort of major fear mongering with every "Republican" stance. You don't have to be a total doucher about everything sheesh.
1) People are here illegally
2) There are people trying to actual legally immigrate (not fair to them)
3) They DO cost for government services, schooling in particular
4) A crap load of the money made leaves the US (not even taxed with sales tax)
5) They probably aren't paying income taxes (although, their income might be in the more money than you pay bracket)
6) If you don't have health insurance just go to the emergency room because they have to see you.'
7) All the "violent people" and the coyotes holding hostages, wouldn't be an issue if they couldn't get here in the first place.
Just watch the ads running right now in AZ for McCain and Brewer, etc. They are hilarious in their "OMG! We are being overtaken by the brown people and we will all die if we don't vote for them" message. That is fear mongering. I didn't make it up- it's a tactic the candidates, campaign managers and taking heads have been using for years. It apparently works very well for those who play into the 'fear'.
The FACT is that crime is down- WAY down in all areas and in all categories across the entire state of Arizona. What the GOP is trying to sell is fear, plain and simple. John McCain and Jan Brewer etc trying to say that our "border situation and crime in the state is spiraling out of control" is simply a lie, and not only is it a lie, it is intended to induce fear to promote their own agenda and to justify why SB 1070 is needed.
The OP made a remark about violent crime being directly related to the illegal immigrants- not whether those pepople are paying taxes or not (although most are).
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2010, 10:08:22 AM
You don't see that with Democrat initiatives and pet causes as well? Global warming, er "climate change", health care, banking reform, etc. ad nauseum?
It's all about creating fear by GOP & Dem politicians to make government intervention in every facet of our lives seem essential, that's how they retain power.
I never said it doesn't happen with both sides- but again that's not what we are talking about in this thread. It is painfully obvious that the GOP is flat out lying about crime and its direct relation to the need for their passing SB 1070, and the use of fear mongering to convince all of us.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 01, 2010, 10:02:24 AM
7) All the "violent people" and the coyotes holding hostages, wouldn't be an issue if they couldn't get here in the first place.
But that is just it. SB 1070 does absolutely nothing to actually secure our borders, or keep anyone from entering- violent criminal or not.
The intention of SB 1070 is to detain and question persons already living in the US, and to establish if that person is a legal resident. Do you really think violent criminals give a s**t if they have proper documentation? Do you really think this is a deterrent for the drug runners and human smugglers to stay on their own side of the fence? They will still be doing their thing, on both sides of the border, regardless of SB 1070.
No, what SB 1070 mainly does is target non-violent residents of the US
once they are already here. IMO it's nothing but a political ploy in an election year, and smoke-screens the real issue of actually securing the border and curbing drug violence.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 01, 2010, 11:09:06 AM
But that is just it. SB 1070 does absolutely nothing to actually secure our borders, or keep anyone from entering- violent criminal or not.
The intention of SB 1070 is to detain and question persons already living in the US, and to establish if that person is a legal resident. Do you really think violent criminals give a s**t if they have proper documentation? Do you really think this is a deterrent for the drug runners and human smugglers to stay on their own side of the fence? They will still be doing their thing, on both sides of the border, regardless of SB 1070.
No, what SB 1070 mainly does is target non-violent residents of the US once they are already here. IMO it's nothing but a political ploy in an election year, and smoke-screens the real issue of actually securing the border and curbing drug violence.
Once you cross the border you are "already here". Do I think it will deter human smugglers? No, but if people don't want to pay money to come here because they know they will be shipped back. Then they will have less people to victimize.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 01, 2010, 10:32:02 AM
Just watch the ads running right now in AZ for McCain and Brewer, etc. They are hilarious in their "OMG! We are being overtaken by the brown people and we will all die if we don't vote for them" message. That is fear mongering. I didn't make it up- it's a tactic the candidates, campaign managers and taking heads have been using for years. It apparently works very well for those who play into the 'fear'.
The FACT is that crime is down- WAY down in all areas and in all categories across the entire state of Arizona. What the GOP is trying to sell is fear, plain and simple. John McCain and Jan Brewer etc trying to say that our "border situation and crime in the state is spiraling out of control" is simply a lie, and not only is it a lie, it is intended to induce fear to promote their own agenda and to justify why SB 1070 is needed.
The OP made a remark about violent crime being directly related to the illegal immigrants- not whether those pepople are paying taxes or not (although most are).
Sales tax helps, but isn't income tax, etc. How does being illegal change home ownership for property tax to pay for schools? What about federal income tax (like I said before though, they might get paid back more than they paid in, so we might want to avoid that).
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 01, 2010, 11:09:06 AM
The intention of SB 1070 is to detain and question persons already living in the US, and to establish if that person is a legal resident. Do you really think violent criminals give a s**t if they have proper documentation? Do you really think this is a deterrent for the drug runners and human smugglers to stay on their own side of the fence? They will still be doing their thing, on both sides of the border, regardless of SB 1070.
That's not correct. The intention of SB 1070 is to enforce existing law. Nothing more.
It provides
no new provisions with the exception of giving local law enforcement the ability to refer suspects to federal authority. You are using the same talking points as the people that proudly claim "I haven't read the bill," but still want to give an opinion on it.
That would be kind of like me giving you my opinion on a restaurant without eating there.
I read it.
The whole discussion (especially talk radio) misses the whole point. Doesn't matter what that talking points are, or whether new points are inserted or not. The state is still trying to do what the Fed, under the Constitution reserves unto itself. As defined IN said Constitution and various cases since. Remember how much of Oklahoma's law is still in effect after a court test?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 01, 2010, 02:40:14 PM
That's not correct. The intention of SB 1070 is to enforce existing law. Nothing more.
And that is not correct. The law didn't exist on a state level. It was never a state crime to be in the country illegally....until now.
I have read the entire bill, a couple of times actually- but nice try.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 01, 2010, 05:02:06 PM
I read it.
The whole discussion (especially talk radio) misses the whole point. Doesn't matter what that talking points are, or whether new points are inserted or not. The state is still trying to do what the Fed, under the Constitution reserves unto itself. As defined IN said Constitution and various cases since. Remember how much of Oklahoma's law is still in effect after a court test?
That's what I have been saying all along. It will eventually be struck down by the Feds anyway you look at it.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 01, 2010, 07:15:06 PM
That's what I have been saying all along. It will eventually be struck down by the Feds anyway you look at it.
Not so fast on the striking down of the law, says Brewer:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/02/brewer-says-shes-ready-potential-federal-court-challenge-immigration-law/
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 01, 2010, 07:12:58 PM
And that is not correct. The law didn't exist on a state level. It was never a state crime to be in the country illegally....until now.
I have read the entire bill, a couple of times actually- but nice try.
Glad you've read it. Here's a few questions:
What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?
What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does already not place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?
Do Arizona law enforcement officials have the ability to determine the residency status of any individual independent of federal investigation?
Do Arizona law enforcement have the jurisdiction to deport anyone?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 02, 2010, 04:37:02 PM
Glad you've read it. Here's a few questions:
What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?
What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does already not place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?
Do Arizona law enforcement officials have the ability to determine the residency status of any individual independent of federal investigation?
Do Arizona law enforcement have the jurisdiction to deport anyone?
Nothing, none, no and no.
I don't have an issue with how the law (now amended) is written. I think the motivations of the authors of the bill are suspect, and I believe that ultimately it will do nothing to curb violent crime or help secure the borders.
What it will do is allow local authorities to harrass and detain residents based on 'reasonable suspicion', to attempt to criminalize otherwise hardworking and law abiding people, when really, local law enforcement should be focusing their already limited resources on true offenders of the law.
I am all for the feds stepping it up. Obviously something needs to happen. This isn't it though.
Quote from: guido911 on June 02, 2010, 01:02:18 PM
Not so fast on the striking down of the law, says Brewer:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/02/brewer-says-shes-ready-potential-federal-court-challenge-immigration-law/
That lovely bit of journalism only mentions potential legal issues regarding racial profiling and civil rights violations. We can leave that part to the marchers outside the capitol to rail against.
The real issue is the Federal law preemption and violation of the constitution thingy.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizonas-immigration-law-supremacy-and-federal-preemption.html
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 02, 2010, 06:10:51 PM
Nothing, none, no and no.
I don't have an issue with how the law (now amended) is written. I think the motivations of the authors of the bill are suspect, and I believe that ultimately it will do nothing to curb violent crime or help secure the borders.
I am all for the feds stepping it up. Obviously something needs to happen. This isn't it though.
Only time will tell. . . For now it seems to be having an effect. Illegals are leaving Arizona. It has also forced the admin to make this a priority, so that too is causing a positive effect. looks like a win/win for Arizona.
I'm glad you "don't have a problem with how the law is written." For some reason it seemed like you did. :D
So your concern is the motivation. Broken down that would mean the:
Logical Reasons - influx in illegal alien population, increase in crime associated with this population, threat to legal residents, and tax on law enforcement and services.
Emotional Reasons - hate, prejudice, hostile atmosphere, etc.
Of these what is your predominant concern.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 03, 2010, 10:34:49 AM
Only time will tell. . . For now it seems to be having an effect. Illegals are leaving Arizona. It has also forced the admin to make this a priority, so that too is causing a positive effect. looks like a win/win for Arizona.
I'm glad you "don't have a problem with how the law is written." For some reason it seemed like you did. :D
The law became less offensive once it was amended to its current wording. The authors obviously knew the original wording would land them in trouble, so they changed it. I think the 'reasonable suspicion' part is still too broad, but its now overall worded better than it was originally.
So your concern is the motivation. Broken down that would mean the:
Logical Reasons - influx in illegal alien population, increase in crime associated with this population, threat to legal residents, and tax on law enforcement and services.
Emotional Reasons - hate, prejudice, hostile atmosphere, etc.
Of these what is your predominant concern.
Actually I said the motivation is suspect. Check out the author Kris Kobach as well as the law peddler Senator Pearce's backgrounds and their ties to white supremacist groups. Interesting to say the least.
Now all the hoopla (on both sides) is obviously just more political grandstanding in an election year. FBI statistics have proven the claims of increased crime false. Arizona is the safest it has been in years. I live here and feel no 'threat' whatsoever. The tax argument is mostly false also. Most undocumented workers still pay income tax. Think of how many hotel, restaurant, construction and landscaping employees there are in the country- many, many are undocumented. They all still have taxes witheld. The big difference is that they are unable to file (and wouldn't file anyway) and therefore cannot claim a refund.
So much for logic. That then leaves us with your so called 'emotional reasons'.......
An interesting side effect of using a stolen Social Security number is that the real owner of the SS number can be held liable for tax on the income earned by the bogus worker. Money may be withheld for the bogus worker but the real owner won't know about it and won't claim it on their return. There may also be insufficient withholding when the progressive nature of our tax is considered. (Bump you up a bracket.) The total income for that SS number will be subject to tax. It happened to a co-worker and it took a l-o-n-g time to get it straightened out.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 03, 2010, 09:39:06 PM
An interesting side effect of using a stolen Social Security number is that the real owner of the SS number can be held liable for tax on the income earned by the bogus worker. Money may be withheld for the bogus worker but the real owner won't know about it and won't claim it on their return. There may also be insufficient withholding when the progressive nature of our tax is considered. (Bump you up a bracket.) The total income for that SS number will be subject to tax. It happened to a co-worker and it took a l-o-n-g time to get it straightened out.
It's only a real issue (other than the PITA factor, which I admit is a big issue!) if it actually does bump the victim up into the next tax bracket, as the person using the stolen SSN is having tax withheld from their check.
Of course, this is yet another situation in which we are causing the problem for ourselves. If we let them get SSNs they wouldn't have to make them up and chance upon a valid number.
Quote from: nathanm on June 03, 2010, 09:42:56 PM
It's only a real issue (other than the PITA factor, which I admit is a big issue!) if it actually does bump the victim up into the next tax bracket, as the person using the stolen SSN is having tax withheld from their check.
Remember we are dealing with the IRS, meaning you are guilty until proven innocent. My co-worker would probably disagree with it only being a PITA factor.
Reality check on the SSN number. I work for a local city government in the IT area. It came back to me while I was at work, and have been cleared by the FBI and the DPS in Arizona to work in the police area of the town. I was called in by the detectives in the persons crimes area because they arrested someone who was using my SSN while I am employed by a city govt. So you can think and hear that this a victimless crime, but I have been on both sides of this, called in by the police while at work, and financial screwed at the same time.
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 03, 2010, 10:26:43 PM
Reality check on the SSN number. I work for a local city government in the IT area. It came back to me while I was at work, and have been cleared by the FBI and the DPS in Arizona to work in the police area of the town. I was called in by the detectives in the persons crimes area because they arrested someone who was using my SSN while I am employed by a city govt. So you can think and hear that this a victimless crime, but I have been on both sides of this, called in by the police while at work, and financial screwed at the same time.
I never said it was victimless, I said our law is what makes it necessary for illegal immigrants to do that sort of thing.
My co-worker was somewhat fortunate in that the bogus worker was several states away and there were records of overlapping times which made it impossible to say the "extra money" was from a part time job. Still took forever to straighten out.
This is as good a place as any, but this morning I was flipping around the news channels. CNN was talking about the gusher. MSNBC was carrying the morning press USCG conference. Fox? A half hour interview with McCain on illegal immigration. Said interview was going along nicely until the news anchor (IOW, not one of their opinion folks) asked if McCain thought that it was "just awful" how Obama decided to deploy the 1,500 soldiers to the border mere hours after McCain met with Obama at the White House to discuss the subject. McCain, to his shame, took the bait.
I thought the bias was supposed to be solely on the opinion shows.
Of course, half an hour later they were all busy talking about whatshisname van der Sloot, so they're all worthless slugs anyway. It's sad when the weather channel has more up to date coverage of a news story than CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
Just thought I'd share.
Quote from: nathanm on June 03, 2010, 09:42:56 PM
It's only a real issue (other than the PITA factor, which I admit is a big issue!) if it actually does bump the victim up into the next tax bracket, as the person using the stolen SSN is having tax withheld from their check.
Of course, this is yet another situation in which we are causing the problem for ourselves. If we let them get SSNs they wouldn't have to make them up and chance upon a valid number.
Just a point, the person using the SSN could very easily claim a large number of dependents to lower the amount of taxes taken out of the check, which would reflect on the actual owner of the SSN as not paying in enough for the amount earned. Something tells me that if someone is willing to use a fake SSN that they would have no qualms about adjusting the numbers to keep as much of the money as possible.
Also, said person with the stolen SSN can wreck all kinds of problems onto the number with criminal activities and credit activities. I have had my info stolen some time back. Luckily the only damage was a set of tools bought on my credit from a tool truck. Still, it took me years to get that straightened out. It can get real nasty.
Quote from: custosnox on June 04, 2010, 12:19:47 AM
It can get real nasty.
No doubt. That's why it annoys me to no end that we don't at least make an attempt to limit the collateral damage.
I'm glad that now this whole thing is starting to cool down. Enough people and media have now taken the time to read and analyze the legislation that Moonbats are having a harder time finding branches to latch onto.
I've heard here, and this morning in the media, the same talking points "oh well it's not so bad now that they reworded it" . . . and even some liberals are taking victory in the minor and very equatable syntax alterations.
If anything, Arizona took a problem that the President (and many before him) promised to address in his campaign, and forced him to make it a priority. Now we just have to see if he is willing to take action.
Quote from: nathanm on June 03, 2010, 10:50:36 PM
I never said it was victimless, I said our law is what makes it necessary for illegal immigrants to do that sort of thing.
Our laws make it "necessary" for people to steal, eh? There's a very good reason foreign countries, including Mexico more closely monitor and enforce immigration laws and have harsh penalties for violating them. Why don't we just repeal any statute which involves theft, because those laws encourage people to steal? You really think it's a great idea to stand at the border and hand out SS numbers?
And, as far as "illegals are paying taxes", FWIW, the pattern is to claim as many exemptions as possible. They wind up paying their share of SS and FICA, but can wind up under-paying federal and state taxes.
Gaspar,
The more pertinent corollary would be; "Thou shalt not steal, especially by minority!"
That E Verify thingy is working well at keeping companies from hiring illegals ::)
http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1301162 (http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1301162)
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/20100603tempe-id-theft-abrk.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/20100603tempe-id-theft-abrk.html)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 04, 2010, 12:37:24 PM
Gaspar,
The more pertinent corollary would be; "Thou shalt not steal, especially by minority!"
K. . .Let me qualify it for ya a bit.
Liberal 3rd Comandment
"Thou shalt not steal, except for what thou deemest to be a worthy cause, where thou thinkest that thou canst use the loot for a better purpose than wouldst the victim of the theft." – F. A. Harper
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 04, 2010, 12:42:09 PM
That E Verify thingy is working well at keeping companies from hiring illegals ::)
http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1301162 (http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1301162)
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/20100603tempe-id-theft-abrk.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/20100603tempe-id-theft-abrk.html)
Say isn't Sherrif Joe of Hispanic decent?
What a racist he is :o
Quote from: Conan71 on June 04, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
Say isn't Sherrif Joe of Hispanic decent?
What a racist he is :o
Italian.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 04, 2010, 09:24:41 AM
And, as far as "illegals are paying taxes", FWIW, the pattern is to claim as many exemptions as possible. They wind up paying their share of SS and FICA, but can wind up under-paying federal and state taxes.
For people making minimum wage, there is rarely, if ever, any income tax owed. SS and FICA is essentially the entirety of their tax.
Like our drug laws create the environment that the drug running gangs work in (just like prohibition did with alcohol and the mafia), preventing people from getting SSNs who will be working anyway just makes them have to make them up or buy them.
How exactly is it that you managed to equate letting illegal aliens get SSNs with theft? That takes some serious mental gymnastics.
Quote from: nathanm on June 04, 2010, 05:15:25 PM
For people making minimum wage, there is rarely, if ever, any income tax owed. SS and FICA is essentially the entirety of their tax.
Now throw that on top of the income of someone that does pay taxes and the IRS may have a surprise for someone.
Liberal 3rd Comandment "Thou shalt not steal, except for what thou deemest to be a worthy cause, where thou thinkest that thou canst use the loot for a better purpose than wouldst the victim of the theft." – F. A. Harper
Or;
Thou shalt not steal, except for what thou deemest to be the benefit of Halliburton, AIG, and Lehman Brother's., and the preservation of the Bush family consulting business with the Bin Laden family, where thou thinkest that it matters not what the great unwashed masses think, because thine s*** don't stink, and thou ist "special" so thou be-ist entitled.
Hence, the 16% tax bill of the Vested Ones, and the corresponding 40% + bill of me and the vast majority of the middle class in this country.
Which percentage are you in??
Temper your scorn.
"Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." -Yoda
Dam...I guess I went too far. I wanted it to be scathing satire.
Oh, well, will have to drop back and punt.
Will try again later.
Don't really have much hate at all (probably a little, but that is something that is extremely difficult to self-assess). We probably agree on this; it uses up too much energy that I can use elsewhere to better effect.
Still lurking here in 40% land.
Heir
Oh, yeah...F.A.Harper? Yeah, I like anarchists. I wanna be one when I grow up. Oh, wait. I'm already there.
He definitely is spinning in the grave after the last 30 years...
Gov. Jan Brewer tripling down:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100611_11_A1_TheHis308476
They're ALL leaving AZ and heading for OK. There are two articles in the TW running along the same lines as this topic.
Guido, cool video! You've just gotta love Gov. Brewer! I think it surprised many people that they can't sneak through the borders, start a family here, and not just automatically be able to stay so their families aren't broken up. Time for them to go back home.
Quote from: guido911 on May 29, 2010, 02:57:42 PM
Looks like it's because of the new law:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/28/schools-immigrant-families-leaving-arizona-because-of-new-immigration-law/
Hopefully other states will follow suit and follow Oklahoma and Arizona's example. With laws like these being enforced illegals will deport themselves. Laws like these being enforced on the local level must anger the pro-illegals seeing how it will drive another nail in Amnesty for illegals coffin.
I doubt the law has had as much effect as a sinking economy has. These folks follow opportunity, and the opportunities in Arizona and Oklahoma are declining.
Nonetheless, as someone noted on a Yahoo article I read, if we were to immediately stop all illegals from working in a state, that state would come to a complete stop economically and physically. The parallels to previous generational immigration problems is pretty scary to me. One would think there is no learning going on from one age to another.
Quote from: jamesrage on June 14, 2010, 03:42:48 PM
Hopefully other states will follow suit and follow Oklahoma and Arizona's example. With laws like these being enforced illegals will deport themselves. Laws like these being enforced on the local level must anger the pro-illegals seeing how it will drive another nail in Amnesty for illegals coffin.
2/3 of the Oklahoma immigration law was struck down in court. Expect much of the same in AZ.
And if you think laws such as these will force undocumented immigrants to 'deport themselves' then you are extremely naive.
A lack of job opportunities is probably the only thing that has a chance of reducing illegal immigration.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 14, 2010, 06:03:16 PM
2/3 of the Oklahoma immigration law was struck down in court.Expect much of the same in AZ.
That is a lie. Last I checked it was only 2 out of 3 employment provisions in HB 1804 not 2/3rds of HB1804 that were struck down.
http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-5153817/aHR0cDovL3d3dy50dWxzYXdvcmxkLmNvbS9zaXRlL2FydGljbGVwYXRoLmFzcHg/YXJ0aWNsZWlkPTIwMTAwMjAyXzEyXzBfREVOVkVSOTA1NjEmYW1wO3Jzc19sbms9NQ==
QuoteAnd if you think laws such as these will force undocumented immigrants to 'deport themselves' then you are extremely naive.
No jobs and no tax payer funded benefits and services means that illegals will have a hard time finding work. Getting pulled over for a traffic offense can get an illegal deported. Going to prison for a year for transporting an illegal means that fewer people will be willing to give a relative who is here legally a ride.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 14, 2010, 06:03:16 PM
2/3 of the Oklahoma immigration law was struck down in court. Expect much of the same in AZ.
I would like to point out that this was only in the 10th circuit, which means that if it gets picked up by the supreme court it is still possible for that this decision can get overturned and the provisions become enforcable. On the flip side of that, the Supreme Court can still say that the third provision is unconstitutional.
Quote from: custosnox on June 14, 2010, 09:09:58 PM
I would like to point out that this was only in the 10th circuit, which means that if it gets picked up by the supreme court it is still possible for that this decision can get overturned and the provisions become enforcable. On the flip side of that, the Supreme Court can still say that the third provision is unconstitutional.
This is true. As it now stands, and unless further legal action is taken, those 2 of the 3 provisions are unenforceable.
Arizona already has e-verify (third provision of HB 1804), which is just an electronic verification system created by the federal government to determine work eligibility, so it is unlikely it would be struck down as unconstitutional.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 14, 2010, 10:01:04 PM
This is true. As it now stands, and unless further legal action is taken, those 2 of the 3 provisions are unenforceable.
Arizona already has e-verify (third provision of HB 1804), which is just an electronic verification system created by the federal government to determine work eligibility, so it is unlikely it would be struck down as unconstitutional.
I know it's unlikely, just pointing out the possibility, even if it is a slim possibility.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 14, 2010, 06:27:45 PM
A lack of job opportunities is probably the only thing that has a chance of reducing illegal immigration.
Well, if the economy keeps going the way it's been going....
Guess we're not the only ones wanting stronger enforcement of immigration laws.
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12650447 (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12650447)
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 15, 2010, 01:05:54 PM
Guess we're not the only ones wanting stronger enforcement of immigration laws.
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12650447 (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12650447)
"Coalition for the American Dream"?
CAD?
I don't think this is any different than the requirements put on BOK Center contractors, nor what's already in HB-1804 which puts burden on employers to verify they are using legal workers.