Arizona Immigration Bill

[Lilllabettt]

when i was a little girl, I assumed there was no abortion, war, death penalty or "borders." and nobody paid to go to school or the doctor.

I was living in a dream world I guess ....

borders are a new thing y'all. Back in the day, if you wanted to move your family to the French countryside, you just did it. The big bad government of the French King was not all super-organized with electronic files about who was and who wasn't in the country.

Borders are sad; tear them down.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='01 May 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1272737069' post='2103174']
borders are a new thing y'all. Back in the day, if you wanted to move your family to the French countryside, you just did it. The big bad government of the French King was not all super-organized with electronic files about who was and who wasn't in the country.

[/quote]
Yep, just gas up the old Citroën, fill your cantines up with water from the tap, get on the ol' A9 to Montpelier, grab some Dramamine from your local pharmacy (courtesy of medicare, of course), wave at your friendly gendarme officer in the squad car as you pass by, and move on out to the country.

But, oh wait: there was no public water supply, highway system, government-supported healthcare, police force, or anything else tax-supported back then. There was nothing to be supported, so there was nothing to mooch off of, and Good Old Louis didn't give a beaver dam whether or not you were occupying his space, because land to him was only to show how powerful and how big his "dominion" was.

See, we used to have a system where we gave jobs to people living in Latin America. We had orchards and military bases and resorts and all kinds of economic stimuli in a magical land called Cuba until they decided that the Yankee hegemony was too overbearing and that it would be better to kick all of the Americans out and instead nationalize all of those things (that's working out great for them, by the way). And of course, the revisionists say that we should have minded our own business (what with being big stinky capitalists and all). They'll then turn around and tell you, though, that you're a doodoohead for not letting people have a chance at a better life in your country because you won't tear down the fence and let every last Tom, Johnsonville brat, and Harry (or Tomás, Ricardo, and Enrique, as the case may be) in, or alternatively, be ok with them being here illegally. It doesn't make sense.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='01 May 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1272743527' post='2103236']
Yep, just gas up the old Citroën, fill your cantines up with water from the tap, get on the ol' A9 to Montpelier, grab some Dramamine from your local pharmacy (courtesy of medicare, of course), wave at your friendly gendarme officer in the squad car as you pass by, and move on out to the country.

[/quote]


I don't get what you're referencing exactly.

but anyway

It was only after all these entitlements came along that governments started becoming worried about who and how many were inside the border.

Borders is a socialist invention.

Tur them down.

[Ed Normile]

I hate to be a stick in the mud, but there has always been borders. I seem to remember a certain river that bordered the promised land, seems Moses could not cross into it, even though he led his people there. Someone mentioned France, Napoleon crossed many borders, and enforced many others during his time as general. England has set borders since it was created, never a socialist country, rather a monarchy. The romans led by the rule of the Caesers were pretty keen on borders too.

ed

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 May 2010 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1272744801' post='2103244']
I hate to be a stick in the mud, but there has always been borders. I seem to remember a certain river that bordered the promised land, seems Moses could not cross into it, even though he led his people there. Someone mentioned France, Napoleon crossed many borders, and enforced many others during his time as general. England has set borders since it was created, never a socialist country, rather a monarchy. The romans led by the rule of the Caesers were pretty keen on borders too.

ed
[/quote]

Ummm no. What you're describing is people getting hot and bothered by leaders wanting to come in and change the government.

I'm talking about individuals and families moving, in order to support themselves.

The old world did not have immigration rules. You did not need a passport or travel visa to make a pilgrimage, for example.

If you wanted to move, you did it.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='30 April 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1272671269' post='2102886']
Oddly the people who cry the loudest about "big brother" in other parts of the government are the first to sign their and most importantly other peoples right to privacy away with this kind of thing.

i cant say i envy the people who are gonna get pulled over(even more) for looking mexican in arizona.
[/quote]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Arizona law has no stipulations in it to pull any body over for looking mexican, or iranian or any other ethnicity or color. This law clearly states it is only for the people who have been already lawfully stopped by law enforcement agents. This means if you have already broken the law and therefore by your illegal actions have forced the law enforcement types to have detained you for your criminal act, then they must determine if you are here legally, that way they can deport you instead of having you as an illegal pay bail to get out of jail and then disappear while there is a trial set up for you which you do not show up for as you are a criminal to begin with, further tying up the legal system and wasting tons of time and taxpayers monies.

ed

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='01 May 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1272745426' post='2103246']
Ummm no. What you're describing is people getting hot and bothered by leaders wanting to come in and change the government.

I'm talking about individuals and families moving, in order to support themselves.

The old world did not have immigration rules. You did not need a passport or travel visa to make a pilgrimage, for example.

If you wanted to move, you did it.
[/quote]

No actually what I was describing was a border. You can still move anywhere you want for employment, as long as you "give to Caeser what is Caesers" that is to say if you want to move to France or America you do it legally, you register with the respective government and then foremost, you pay taxes, just like the Roman tax collectors came around even before Jesus was born, the country you make profits in requires you to pay taxes for the right to make that profit, these taxes are used for infrastructure and armies, to provide for the peoples needs, like the roman aquaducts that supplied the roman subjects with their water and the roman soldiers who kept the peace for the citizens.

ed

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='01 May 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1272745426' post='2103246']
Ummm no. What you're describing is people getting hot and bothered by leaders wanting to come in and change the government.

I'm talking about individuals and families moving, in order to support themselves.

The old world did not have immigration rules. You did not need a passport or travel visa to make a pilgrimage, for example.

If you wanted to move, you did it.
[/quote]

Yeah but you were still subject to the laws of whatever/whoever ruled the region. Migration in the past was never the rainbows and butterflies you are describing.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Maximilianus' date='01 May 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1272747805' post='2103260']
Yeah but you were still subject to the laws of whatever/whoever ruled the region. Migration in the past was never the rainbows and butterflies you are describing.
[/quote]


Yeah. Moving was a dangerous ordeal. There were no guarantees you'd survive or that your life wherever you were going would be any better.

But you didn't need anybody's permission, either.

Chariman Mao, now he was a guy who wouldn't let people come and go as they pleased. Which you know, killed thousands of people during the famine there. But he's a modern example.

The Romans did not give a rats hiney who paid taxes, as long as they paid taxes.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 May 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1272745437' post='2103247']
I hate to burst your bubble, but the Arizona law has no stipulations in it to pull any body over for looking mexican, or iranian or any other ethnicity or color. This law clearly states it is only for the people who have been already lawfully stopped by law enforcement agents. This means if you have already broken the law and therefore by your illegal actions have forced the law enforcement types to have detained you for your criminal act, then they must determine if you are here legally, that way they can deport you instead of having you as an illegal pay bail to get out of jail and then disappear while there is a trial set up for you which you do not show up for as you are a criminal to begin with, further tying up the legal system and wasting tons of time and taxpayers monies.

[/quote]

Unfortunately, even in places where the law says that people cannot be pulled over unless they have already broken a law, and not simply based on their physical appearance, there are individual law enforcement officers who engage in "racial profiling" by interpreting "lawfully stopped" very broadly. I'll give law enforcement officers due credit that most of them don't do this, but some do, and in some (many?) communities, the higher-ups "look the other way" if racial profiling is going on. I wish this wasn't the case, but I think "racial profiling" is more common than we realize.

Of course, the person who is pulled over illegally can fight it. But, this means hiring legal counsel and probably going to court (and having to take time off work to do so, which, for some people, could endanger their jobs). Not to mention that, even if a person is found innocent, in some jurisdictions, police records would still show that the person was pulled over, even if they were eventually found innocent in Court. This doesn't even start to address the humiliation the innocent person experiences.

In a suburb near me, it took the clout of Michael Jordan's wife to get the city council and police officials to admit that "racial profiling" was going on, and make real changes not only to their policies, but to their actions. Most towns don't have a "Juanita Jordan" with that much financial clout and access to media to force public officials to correct the problem.

It's good that the Arizona law is written the way it is. But, sadly, in practice, it may not be applied the way it is written.

Edited May 2, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='01 May 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1272743938' post='2103239']
Tur them down.
[/quote]

Um yes, because this world needs more chaos.

[God the Father]

If Mexicans want to consume in my community and provide labor for market value, I am sincerely grateful. If they fail to pay taxes to a bloated, criminally inefficient nanny state, I am proud of them because it constitutes a statement I'd never have the guts to make. If they escape the crime, violence, guinea worms, etc. of Mexico and find save haven in America, I wish them and their families all the best because they've probably had a pretty rough time of it up to now.

But a large group of white people who've gotten fat of the dollar of the workers, consumers, investors, and employers who are actually contributing to something writing up ANOTHER law that gives MORE power to the "executive branch" at the expense of any human being trying to make a living? That should be a crime.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='30 April 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1272685733' post='2103012']

I'm inclined to believe that you don't think that anything actually exists, because by extending your definition of a country, how can you say a bank exists? Sure, it's in a physical building, but that building could be there long after the corporation has been dissolved. All they are is individuals. How can they take away my money when I write a check for an amount greater than what is in my account? Surely you do not have that right, to take my money on a whim if you decide that's what's appropriate. The bank is just an idea.[/quote]

I did not define a country. I defined a State. The two terms are not interchangeable.

A bank is not merely a building. The nature of a bank is a positive reality: a network of a particular type of voluntary economic relationships among individuals, which in reality benefits all the participants. The State is the manifestation of a lie: the idea that some individuals have the right to take money from non-aggressors by force or threat thereof. The State, [i]qua[/i] the right to initiate aggression, exists as much as "gay marriage" exists.


[quote]Here's the thing: society functions based on ideas. Ideas and agreements. Some 330,000,000 people agree that that little green rectangle is worth something. Those same 330,000,000 people agree and consent to - implicitly, by inhabiting the geographic area which some 6.5 billion people agree constitutes it - the laws and conditions of the US. He has agreed that if he breaks the law, the other 329,999,999 people may punish him as they deem appropriate (typically by a group of elected representatives.) If one should decide at any point that he doesn't like these laws or does not consent to them, one of the many agreed upon terms is that one may hit the road (either concrete, as in the Interstate system, or ideological, as in a wooden door cast adrift or by slightly more luxurious means, such as an aircraft) at the time of his earliest volition and/or convenience.[/quote]

You still fail to show how 329,999,999 people suddenly have the right to do what [i]one[/i] person has absolutely [i]no[/i] right to do.

You mention "society." The State is not social. It is anti-social. Its nature is aggression, (not to be confused with "violence") which has no place in a true society. Society, of course, being defined as individuals with a common goal engaging in voluntary interactions for mutual benefit.

[quote]And one last thing:

The name of the country which we both inhabit is the United State[i][b][u]s[/u][/b][/i] of America. If there is a nation known as the United State, neither I nor the UN recognise it.
[/quote]

A State is not a place. It is an idea. One cannot occupy space in an idea. I said earlier that I do not live in an idea. Still less do I live in a lie, namely, the insane idea that I have the right to initiate violence against my neighbor, even if only by proxy.

The War of Northern Aggression was fought to ensure that we all labor under the same slavemaster. If there is "one nation, indivisible," then there is nothing but the State, and its 50 appendages. If the appendages can do something against the direction of the State, then there is disunity.

~Sternhauser

[King's Rook's Pawn]

I used to accept the Hoppean idea that strong border enforcement is acceptable for the advancement of liberty for short term practical reasons, at least until we longer have a burdensome welfare state for illegal immigrants to take advantage of. But then I came to see that this would only backfire: you can't rely on the state to enforce any restriction in a way conducive to more freedom. Border enforcement would only be used to increase the power of those already in power, since that's what they have the incentive to do. And furthermore, border and immigration enforcement creates yet more opportunities for invasion of privacy and the reduction of civil liberties, for both citizens and non-citizens.

If you want to solve the illegal immigration problem you need to do away with the welfare state and "public goods," which incentivize parasitism. Ending the international drug war and phony "free trade" agreements like NAFTA would help too, since both these things create instability south of the border and thereby encourage illegal immigration.

Edited May 2, 2010 by King's Rook's Pawn

[havok579257]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='01 May 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1272745437' post='2103247']
I hate to burst your bubble, but the Arizona law has no stipulations in it to pull any body over for looking mexican, or iranian or any other ethnicity or color. This law clearly states it is only for the people who have been already lawfully stopped by law enforcement agents. This means if you have already broken the law and therefore by your illegal actions have forced the law enforcement types to have detained you for your criminal act, then they must determine if you are here legally, that way they can deport you instead of having you as an illegal pay bail to get out of jail and then disappear while there is a trial set up for you which you do not show up for as you are a criminal to begin with, further tying up the legal system and wasting tons of time and taxpayers monies.

ed
[/quote]

do you honestly think the cops will question the immigration status of EVERYONE they question for breaking the law? i have a feeling they will not be questioning the average white or black american. i have a feeling they will be mostly questioning the mexican looking people. sure they will question enough white and black american's so to hit a quota as to not be blatently racist, but the majority who will be questioned will be mexican american's. i absolutly hate hate hate hate when people race bait about everything. i will rarley ever claim racism on anything because for the most part i believe politicians make most of the cases up to generate votes. although this law does stink of racism. its racism because mexican looking people are going to be singled out. anyone who thinks different is living in a fantasy world. this part of it makes the law evil. sure, there are a lot of mexican looking people who are illegals, but there are just as many who are legal. singling out a single race is wrong. the cops will be looking extra hard at anyone who looks mexican. mexican looking people will be getting question for all sorts of minor offenses. i can just seen numerous people being questioned over jay walking or littering or other such minor offenses. offenses so minor the cops would not even bother questioning people if this law was not in effect.


taxpayer money? blame the immigarants? ha, blame the politicians. anyone who blames the immigrants has no clue. blame the politcians. the tax system in this country is antiqueted. we need a fair tax. its basically the thing that winchester said. then there would be no such thing as illegal immigrants. every single person would be paying the same taxes be them born or not born in america.