I agree that singling out a group is wrong and that some officers will no doubt stop people for no other reason. My question to you Adam is how do you think immigration should be fixed? There have been a lot of ideas in Washington, but none of them have really seemed to be good enough. I’d be curious to know how you think it can be fixed without singling anyone out. I honestly don’t have any strong opinions on how to do it, so I’m not out to get you, honestly just curious to hear some opinions.

Hey, cool Adam. . . “Enjoy your civil liberties, as long as you don’t look Mexican”. . .you can spot a Mexican just by looking at him? Do you have super speed and invisibility powers too? Can you do the same thing with a gay or Norwegian?

Therein lies the trouble with the comfortably removed from offeirng underinformed coomment.

John will be troubled that you have switched your mancrush too.

I said as long as you don’t look Mexican, implying that not only Mexicans will be screwed over by the bill. That’s exactly the point. And it’s also the point that they are obviously targeting Mexicans when there are very many Mexican citizens. I’m not sure what exactly you’re getting at.

What is your so wise comment in support of this legislation? I would love to hear a valid defense instead of picking out one comment, misinterpreting it, then zinging me.

And a guy can have more than one mancrush.

And interesting comment, Barry. That’s an issue I had not thought of.

I get what you’re saying Barry, but your two points really just amount to excuses to ignore illegal activity. I agree with you Adam that we need a system to legalize the status of those who are here and have done nothing but work hard and try to make a life for themselves. I’m not sure how the border can be secured without a fence. The only other option I can think of is one where the Army polices the border. The costs would be very high in terms of man power and technology in monitoring such a huge distance effectively enough to actually stop the problem. To me that’s the main problem with the Arizona law, the border isn’t secure so as many people as they send back, that many more will keep coming in. I can’t totally bash Arizona for the law though since Washington hasn’t done anything. They can’t just pretend that the problem isn’t there.

I think the best plans for securing the border involve technology and additional manpower. Fences can be climbed, dug under, or broken through. The answer likely lies in better systems of monitoring and people to act. But it will become a question of how much price we are willing to incur to stop people from illegally entering the country.

Adam, you are certainly right about controlling the border, it does involve better technology and more man power but at what expense. I do believe that this should be a top priority but at what cost.

Let’s see what the courts say about the law

Ray, to counter your Civil War statement, if the South hadn’t acted as they had and had thought out the consequences, perhaps it could have been avoided. But go North! You should always consider all of the consequences. In this instance, the costs will far outweigh the benefits, though I doubt it will get there due to how unconstitutional this law is.

But you are most likely right in saying this will spur action. Hopefully we get some solid financial reform quickly and this can become a top priority.

“Ray, to counter your Civil War statement, if the South hadn’t acted as they had and had thought out the consequences, perhaps it could have been avoided.”-Adam Feser

To counter your statement Adam, if Washington hadn’t been ignoring the problem or at least failing to actually do anything about it for so many years, Arizona wouldn’t have had to come up with something on their own. Perhaps the Arizona law could have been avoided.

Barry….I don’t even know what to say. Nobody likes war or loss of life, but it’s hard to find anybody anywhere who will say that they aren’t glad that the Civil War was faught. Many things should have happened to eliminate slavery, you’re right, but they didn’t, so the war took place, and thank God that it did. Can you imagine this nation if it hadn’t, or if it had gone the other way? And again, many things should have happened to address imigration, but they didn’t, so Arizona is in the spot they’re in. I’m looking forward to seeing how Washington responds, surely they’ll come up with something far better than the state of Arizona………

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. ~Ernest Hemingway

All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones. In my opinion, there never was a good war or a bad peace. When will mankind be convinced and agree to settle their difficulties by arbitration? ~Benjamin Franklin

Just a couple of guys that agree with me.

Ray You miss the whole point and try to change the argument to my lack of morals for comparing Slavery to Levees which you need to reread because I did no such thing. The point is, should we just sit idly by and not speak up when a bad law is passed, or should we say , oh at least they are tryng something , lets wait and see if it works, The Federal gov, didn’t do anything so Arizona is, maybe it will work. That is exactly the attitude that has caused so much tragedy in the past , so many people just sit by and let bad decisions be made without speaking out against it. The comparison in my argument is. If more folks had stood up to the tragedy of slavery , it would have been eliminated. If more folks had stood up for new levees, the tragedy of the hurricane would have been avoided. When Neville Chamberlain appeased the Germans over Czechoslovakia , everyone said . Lets wait and see if this works to stop the Nazis. The British had to do something right? The whole point of my argument is that the time to stand up against injustice is before it happens, you don’t wait to see if it happens, by that time it is to late?

I have answered that question already in the commentary. Instead of arguing in circles, I am waiting to hear a rational argument from you on why we should sit back and let this law go unchallenged. The argument that Arizona can do anything they want because the Feds have not acted is not a good argument. The issue here is the new law!

I realize that the issue here is the new law, but to really effectively attack something like this, you should probably have a better solution in mind.

My point is that many of the people who strongly oppose this law have no ideas of their own. This law will no doubt bring about more violence in the short-term, but guess what will bring about more violence in the long-term? Doing nothing. It’s gone too far because the states have waited far too long for Washington to fix it. It hasn’t happened, so I support the Arizona state government in taking action against a huge problem. I’d just love to see you at a town hall meeting in Arizona bashing the leadership for this law and then have them say “well Barry, what do you think we should do?” and then watch you fumble around since you have no ideas. Unless Washington comes up with something better, I say go Arizona!

Ray I wouldn’t Fumble around at all , I would say what I have said from the start on this post. Making things worse is not the answer to making things better. I don’t have to know the solution to the issue , to know that much.

Ray The border is open already and has been since Arizona actually belonged to Mexico. The border has never been closed. This new law will push what has always been in the open , into the shadows. And just like anything that gets pushed into the shadows violence will occur. When presented with the choice of leaving things the way they are and accepting this new law , I will vote for leaving things the way they are , because it is better than what we would see if this law is enacted. Of course neither choice is a good one.

Ray since you are a conservative you should enjoy this report from the Heritage Foundation. have a gander at it , it might dispel some myths that you have about illegals.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/03/The-Real-Problem-with-Immigration-and-the-Real-Solution

I’ve loved the exchange. I had to write a paper by four today then drive to SD. Just got here and am impressed with the amount of action going on.

Here’s some fuel for the fire: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0428/Arizona-immigration-law-painful-lessons-from-Oklahoma.

This law will have negative consequences for the state economy, not just civil rights.

Ray I am not saying that I agree with the report, I just felt you might enjoy reading it since it was a conservative point of view. I actually saw the same holes in the plan as you, with maybe the exception of getting them to return to Mexico. The only reason I say that is I have lived in an area where I personally knew Illegals and worked side by side with them irrigating fields, and I know that they are very family oriented and would return to Mexico to visit family, in fact most of the money they earned was sent back to Mexico to their families.
As far as your statement about large numbers of criminals hiding and committing crimes, I have been consistent from the beginning of this argument that I believe this new law makes that situation worse and not better. It is better to leave things the way they are than it is to make them worse. I notice today that the Phoenix chief of police is the newest leader of Arizona police officers to come out against the law.

Ray . If only this new law was #2 then I would say we were on the right track , but it is not solid, consistent or swift and if enacted will make things worse. Arizona is already starting to backpedal on this though , I think that it probably wont be enacted or will be changed after the first police officer is killed because of it.

We seem to just be arguing in circles now. I am against the law because I believe it will make matters worse from unintended consequences. You support the law because you believe that the Arizona legislature has the right to protect it’s citizens , and some times laws have consequences, but that is the price we pay to live in a nation of laws. that is fair enough . What I am wondering now is, will you show that same consistency of support when the US legislature passes a law to protect us from Wall Street corruption, or will you be against the law if you see any unintended consequences?

But you would support it Right? as long as it was ethical and not excessive you would support it, even if it would make the financial system worse. Ok at least you are being consistent.

Typically laws will not make crime worse either. It is too bad that the new Arizona law is not typical in this regard.

You guys have a great thing going here. It is interesting to see different issues from different perspectives. I think immigration reform is one where Ray isn’t terribly far away from me (and Barry, perhaps?).

I don’t support laws that violate civil rights. Ray, you’re right when you say we need reform on a federal level to set guidelines and address the problem.

Ray there are others that agree with you, that this law is a step in the right direction. Most notably are the Mexican drug cartels.

I initially didn’t have a strong opinion either way. My feeling is that the states can’t fix immigration without the federal government, and in the same way the federal government can’t do it without the states. This is one of the rare situations where I can’t see a solution without all parties on board.

Whether you are for it or against it in Arizona, can you honestly say that a good message will be sent if they back down on it? If Arizona fails to follow through with this law, then the next time a state, or the federal government, or hopefully a combination of both try to crack down on immigration we’ll see the percentage of illegals who are violent acting out even more because they’ll feel as though they’ll get the government to back off by doing so. Laws aren’t always easy to enforce, but that doesn’t mean that our legal system should look the other way. The best thing at this point would be for Congress to get legislation ready that will do what it should at the federal level and that will work with laws like the one in Arizona (which would ideally serve the purpose of enforcing a federal law).

Instead we will see Washington fighting Arizona like crazy without offering alternatives. Go government go…..

How? The government at every level has failed for decades to enforce a law that has seen more and more violators, so it seems like many people feel like it just isn’t worth fixing because it might make people sad or some may get angry and act out. So….if enough people start driving away without paying for their gas it should just be ignored because it would really be too inconvenient to follow up on it. Or perhaps we should all just fail to pay our taxes, then maybe the IRS will just forget about it since after all, we might get mad if they come after us. Laws must be enforced, period.

How is the law a bad message? Because it’s racist and un-American. As a small government, individual liberty guy I can’t believe you would support this infringement on the rights of Americans.

What is proper enforcement? What is “suspicious activity” that police are forced to check? No one has answered these questions.

People that commit serious crimes should be deported. I guess I don’t really know why that doesn’t happen. But that is an example of a better reform that people agree on that would work. There’s an example of a much better law right there.

Barry’s point that the law can be wrong remains. This law is wrong. Just because he showed an extreme example doesn’t mean the point isn’t salient.

If you think my argument is weak then answer me this . If tomorrow the feds would start to enforce the law and they started to round up 20 million people, Were would they go?, Mexico couldn’t handle that influx of people and not all come from Mexico . ICE would have to process and send them back to thier respective countries. In order to care for all those people “Camps” would have to be set up, were we could ” Concentrate” this mass of people. But by George the law will be enforced. If you dont think that something like that is possible even in our own nation , then you need to go back to history class.

Ray You are getting me confused with Adam. in all my arguments I have never argued that the law was racist, I have argued that the law is dangerous .Many of your new points are just attempts to change the argument away from that premise.
The President once again shows his wisdom, in his directions to ICE.The system cant handle the influx and it is a recipe for disaster. If Arizona wants make laws then they should be responsible for the consequences of those laws.
As I mentioned already not all of the illegals are from Mexico, but even for those that are , there is no way of forcing Mexico to take them back, and even if they did , do you honestly think that our southern border would be immune to the social chaos that would cause, you think we have problems now.

I personally believe that at this point , the new law will not be enacted, as more and more Arizona citizens realize the knee- jerk aspects of this law, the political pressure will at the very least take the teeth out of the law. I see this morning that the cities of Flagstaff and Tuscon are filling suit against the State over enforcement of the law. I guess not as many people are for this as we were originally led to believe.

Say what you will about O’Reilly, but I like him. He does irritate me at times by defending Obama too much, which is odd since he’s such a right wing nut.

And yes, the law is racist. Do you think many white people will be subjected to random stops?

Tell me this Adam and Barry, if the federal government came out with a real temporary work permit program allowing people to legally be in the country, would you then support laws to weed out those who are here illegally rather than taking advantage of such a program? I guess the question is, could there ever be a time where you would support kicking out illegal aliens?

I think that if employers would be given the means to check on an employees status and there were high fines imposed for hiring illegals, the problem would take care of itself. But first we have to secure the border and as you state set up a guest worker program. Both would be expensive and I have no idea were the money will come from , but if it were done then the only illegals would be of the criminal element and the only way I would approve of sending them back to their respective countries is if there was some guarantee that they would be imprisoned so they could not return here, otherwise they should be imprisoned here.

Ray go back and read my post. I clearly said that a guest worker program and securing the border would have to happen before we instituted any employer sanctions otherwise it will cause violence, the same way that the knee-jerk Arizona law will. And of course I think they should deport those who commit misdemeanors., unless they are reoccurring. We certainly don’t want felons to escape justice through deportation. The guest worker program would have to include those that are here already, rounding up and sending 20 million people back is just not realistic and part of that program needs to be high tech documentation of status. after that I feel it would be safe to say that the problems would be minimized to the point that deportation because of status would be minimal and handled during normal law enforcement activities and the level of danger would drop dramatically. But doing all these things will take a ton of money and I just don’t see were that money will come from

Many illegal immigrants do not pay income taxes, that’s what I meant. You can’t deny that.

The scare tactic that 20 million people will be rounded up over night and sent back to Mexico is just plain stupid. We’re talking about a never ending process of sending people on their way if and when they are found, not a massive effort to round people up.

I can’t see where the employer penalites would be well received even with the other laws in place first. There would still be employers who would ignore the work permit system and hire those who did find a way through the border or who never went home in the first place because it would be cheaper. There would still be a bad reaction and by your logic that means that such a law would be wrong. Can’t have people commiting crimes having their feelings hurt darn it!

Ray even crazy ol Bill O Reilly agrees with me that the illegal immigrants that are here already should be allowed to stay here. Here is a link were he states so.

http://www.billoreilly.com/blog?action=viewBlog&blogID=933481509264834092

I can also put up links of Senator Mc Cain saying the same thing, you know back when he was a maverick.

Just so you know , Just about the only thing I agree with BillO on in this link, is that the illegals should be allowed to stay and work toward citizenship.

I can see a system where illegals could obtain citizenship, but only if we have a real, enforced system to secure the border. I also believe that we should have a system that would remove citizenship for those who commit crimes within a few years of getting it.

I don’t like the idea that just because the issue is tough it should just be ignored, and that seems like the logic of most in Washington.

I’ll listen to a comment from O’Reilly, but using McCain doesn’t impress anyone Barry.

I do read your posts Barry, and I responded to the stupidity in the idea that 20 million people will be rounded up and sent home. I also made the point that no matter what laws are in place first in terms of guest worker programs and securing the border, there will still be illegals and it will still be cheaper to hire them, so if you put those penalties on employers there will be a negative reaction, possibly violent. Since the reaction is all you care about, I wondered why you’d want something that would still make people mad.

Ray I pretty much said that the deportation of 20 million people was stupid , at least not realistic , were my words. Good grief even when you agree with me you are now making an issue. And do you really believe that there will be a employer uprising, if so it would be the first in history. I have never talked about reaction or hurting peoples feelings or even race in my arguments , I have talked about danger. You are right to point out that no matter what we do there will still be problems with illegal immigration, but there are ways to make the situation better and less dangerous, passing laws like Arizonas new law that make things more dangerous is not the answer to the problem.

You’ve made it sound like 20 million people would be deported over the Arizona law Barry, and that just isn’t true.

I wasn’t talking about an employer uprising, I was talking about the anger and potential violence from illegals who would lose work over employer penalties.

You say that you aren’t worried about hurting feelings Barry, but isn’t that what would cause the violence and danger that you fear will take place?

As far as removing citizenship, what I mean (though I didn’t state it clearly) is that with an effective immigration policy there would need to be a sort of probation period where should the person become a criminal in that time, they would lose their citizenship per the probation terms. I guess in such a policy citizenship wouldn’t be official until the end of the period. This doesn’t seem different than the idea of giving illegals the right to “earn citizenship”.

I’ve said before that the Arizon law isn’t perfect, but I don’t believe that it’s near as bad as you guys make it sound, and certainly not as bad as the majority of the media would have us believe. I also have yet to hear any real solutions from Washington or any of the other critics. Arizona is at least trying to do something, too bad they have almost no support in their effort.

If Arizona wants to secure it’s own borders, setup it’s own guest worker program with High tech Ids and documentation, and then and only then pass laws that impose. high penalties on employers. Then I would be for this new Arizona law as well, as long as it is all found constitutional, I wont ever be for an unconstitutional law. In other words if Arizona wants to solve the problem in their state , why are they doing it half-assed and making things more dangerous?

Precisely Ray, No one has the money for it and no one is willing to pay for it. that is exactly why nothing has ever been done.

It also makes no sense to do things that make matters worse.

And before you give me any nonsense about comparing immigration to lawns. This is only an exercise in logic , nothing else.

I wasn’t against doing something about healthcare, I just don’t believe that what was done will save money. I was in favor of small steps, not large reform for healthcare. I feel the same way about immigration, small steps will be best.

The Arizona law isn’t illegal. The law being talked about on NBC and other left media is illegal, but luckily it’s not what was passed in Arizona, it’s something made up that people are buying.

“Any lawful contact…” is the key phrase here. The police can’t walk up to just anyone on the street and demand “papers.” There must be a reason to make contact with the subject. For instance, in my duties as a deputy sheriff, I see a person sitting on a park bench drinking a beer. I may approach that person and request identification to prove that person has the legal right (age, probation and parole status, TRO, etc) to drink the beer. During the course of that legal contact, I certainly check for any outstanding warrants and ask dispatch if anyone matching the description is currently the subject of an ATL order. I can then demand that the person provide proof of legal residence. Many arrests are made that way. Sure, the guy was legal to drink the beer, but he had a warrant. So now he goes to jail. Am I profiling beer drinkers? Or park visitors? No, I’m doing my job as a cop and arresting someone for breaking a law.

Illegal aliens have broken the law by coming here illegally. On top of that, they are drain on the social services, education and law enforcement systems… they should be removed from this country and encouraged to immigrate legally.

I can’t simply say “There’s a Mexican. I’m going to check for a green card.” if the person is simply walking down the street obeying all the laws. Remember, they caught the Son of Sam by reviewing every parking ticket issued in the area of the murders and contacting every person to whom those tickets were issues… was that harassment or profiling?

The law is pretty ambiguous, but a crime does not have to be committed for someone to be stopped. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/28/john-huppenthal/arizona-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/

Let’s think about it for a second. Being an illegal immigrant, as you so wisely pointed out, is a crime. If you reasonably suspect someone of being an illegal immigrant, you suspect them of a committing a crime and can stop them. We’re back to what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and we’re back to racial profiling.

If you’ll look around a bit, you’ll find illegal immigrants have a positive impact on the economy. But I guess the “drain” of educating children (even teaching them English!) is overwhelming.

As opposed to removing every single illegal immigrant, which is completely unrealistic, why don’t we present a path to citizenship and focus on securing the borders?

I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the country, not the crime of crossing. It seems a completely logical step to deport those that break the law once in the country. This would make more sense than just deporting people regardless of family status or contribution to America.

He said that, but it isn’t true.

“Lawful contact can occur in many instances when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime,” she said. “A consensual encounter, such as asking a police officer for directions, reporting a crime to a police officer, or being a victim of a crime or a witness and being questioned by a police officer, is a ‘lawful encounter.’ Also lawful are some stops premised on absolutely no individualized reasonable suspicion — think about DUI checkpoints where everyone is stopped even if there is no individualized suspicion for the stop. The bill is clear that so long as the initial encounter is lawful, a police officer can then ascertain my legal status upon suspicion that I am undocumented. So Huppenthal is wrong if he maintains that only those suspected of criminal activity can be questioned regarding status. Under the plain language of the law, any time the police engage in a lawful encounter, that is enough to trigger the inquiry into status upon reasonable suspicion.”

You can go ahead and reread whatever I have written.

And it’s unconstitutional for a state to engage in foreign affairs, such as immigration policy.

And I’m sick of all caps. It does nothing but make a comment less respectable.

And it’s never good to say the majority of the country is either human garbage or worse.

And I don’t need to march because the law is being challenged in court.

And why is it unplayable? Do you think this law will be applied to white people? If a guy forgets his driver’s license and is white, do you think he’ll be detained?

You’re a South Dakotan first and American second? And should counties not be forced to adhere to state mandates, and cities not forced to adhere to county and state mandates, and and so on?

So you’re more of an Articles of the Confederation guy? That wasn’t exactly a golden era in our history.

Hahaha. Look up the definition of defecates. It’s demonstrated properly every time you make a comment.

No need to get touchy. I just thought it was pretty funny. If you want more local politics you can write about it. You are one of the bloggers which means you can write about anything you want to dictate discussion.

The Founding Fathers realized that there was a delicate balance to be maintained. Too little government such as what was established under the Articles of Confederation would lead to anarchy. However; too much government would lead to tyranny, the exact thing the Revolution was fought for. The Founders also recognized that there was a balance to be maintained between the control by a federal government and government at the local level. The Founders knew that if governmental power was to swing towards the federal government, the country would soon be under a new form of tyrannical control. This is the exact direction that progressives are pushing this country.

[...] apparently brought out the most racist xenophobic fears in America.  As if the debate surrounding Arizona’s racist immigration law was not enough to demonstrate how far the United States has wandered from the ideal of an open, [...]