Arizona's New ID (Immigration) Law

[swansont]

Sure, fences aren't perfect. But isn't it obvious that a fence is more of a deterrent than a wide open field? It's not a question of utterly stopping illegal immigration, it's a question of eliminating as much of it as is reasonably possible and then dealing appropriately with the ones that got through. (No, a permanent amnesty program for people who got into the country illegally is NOT normal or reasonable, but having a temporary one to deal with the ones who are here at the moment does make sense IF we reasonably secure the border.)

 

Putting up a basic fence also indemnifies the country against the problem of safety along the border. Or put another way, it frees us from the expense of staffing food/water/1st-aid stations every 200 yards lest the world deem us evil (again).

 

I think a large objection is the cost-effectiveness of the deterrent. You not only have to build it, but you also have to maintain it and patrol it, because people will cut holes in it, climb over it or tunnel underneath. The question becomes how much you will affect traffic for the amount of money you spend.

[bascule]

Is that on Penn & Teller's 'Bullshit'? If so, I don't know how I missed it, but I've got to see it.

 

Yes:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1026080/

 

Among other things they also argue that immigration, both legal and illegal, is good, and that illegal immigrants are more hard working, success-oriented, and less likely to commit crimes than your average American citizen.

[Pangloss]

I think a large objection is the cost-effectiveness of the deterrent. You not only have to build it, but you also have to maintain it and patrol it, because people will cut holes in it, climb over it or tunnel underneath. The question becomes how much you will affect traffic for the amount of money you spend.

 

It doesn't have to be cost-effective, it has to stop most of the people who are trying to get in.

 

I actually saw that episode of Bullsh*t, and as much as I love Penn & Teller and their great way of cutting through the BS and getting to more important issues, I really think they blew it on this. And I'm not the only one who thinks so -- many libertarians think that controlling the border is a valid thing for government to do, especially in light of terrorism, etc.

 

And I simply don't buy this "it's too big to control" argument, or the "it's too expensive to control" argument. The simple application of technology, physical barricade and manpower has been clearly shown to be more than sufficient to send infiltrators to other sections of the border that are more easily accessed, yes? We all agree that this currently happens, right?

 

So if the question is merely "what will they do when the whole thing rises to the level that pushed them to easier paths", then I think you have to do that and THEN see what happens.

 

And look at it this way: What if the practical result of putting up a full-length fence that's monitored 24/7 is that you cut illlegal immigration in half? Well then you've DONE SOMETHING. You've actually accomplished a great deal. Sure thousands of people are still getting through, but then you re-address the problem and look at what can be done next.

[padren]

And look at it this way: What if the practical result of putting up a full-length fence that's monitored 24/7 is that you cut illlegal immigration in half? Well then you've DONE SOMETHING. You've actually accomplished a great deal. Sure thousands of people are still getting through, but then you re-address the problem and look at what can be done next.

 

I would love to know the relationship between the failure rate of crossing, the number of employers seeking illegal alien labor, and the number of illegals in the country.

 

I've always thought that the issue was demand based. As long as people are trying to fill jobs with illegals, they have their buddies already here telling them to get the heck over the border, and the employers encourage this as long as they are in need.

 

Twice as many Mexican families may loose a huge amount of their savings paying coyotes to get them across because twice as many get caught trying - but until they start calling south and complaining that it's hard to find illegal labor jobs to do, they'll keep coming to fill the void.

 

 

The only way to erode this from the supply side is to make it so difficult on employers to find reliable illegals that it's cheaper for them to higher legal employees. I agree the stricter border is part of the solution, but that much bigger returns and accomplishments can be made on the demand side.

[DrDNA]

Top ten facts about this situation:

 

1. It is a FEDERAL crime for aliens to fail to keep registration documents on their person.

A law which has never been enforced.

The Arizona law just makes it illegal in Arizona to violate that federal law.

 

2. This is a state's rights issue.

It is none of the federal government's, nor California's, business.

As long as it is not "unconstitutional", if I don't like the law in Arizona (where I just so happen to reside and support this law and the US constitution in its entirety--including but not limited to the second amendment), I should just be able to move to a state where I agree with that state's laws.

 

3. Contrary to popular belief, the US constitution does not apply to non citizens.

Including those that are within the boundaries of US borders illegally.

 

4. Mexico shoots illegal immigrants as they cross their border from Guatemala.

If they make it in without getting shot, they are frequently beaten and robbed by the Mexican authorities before being deported.

And El Presidenta is criticizing us?

 

5. We don't give a hoot what El Presidenta thinks or says.

 

6. Penn and Teller do not live in AZ and Arizonans don't give a fat rat's behind what they think.

They live in Viva Las Vegas.

I have been trying to build a fence between Arizona and Nevada for over twenty years now, but have been unable to secure the necessary capital.

Would you please send your generous donations to me at PO Box BR549, Phoenix Arizona?

 

I promise to keep the cost of the construction of said fence low by hiring illegals.

 

If you think my choice of labor force is wrong, then you obviously do not have a problem with Arizona's immigration law.

 

7. If I am unable to obtain sufficient funds to build the fence between AZ and Nevada, I propose that we move Viva Las Vegas, along with Penn and Teller, the Elvis impersonators and all the prostitutes, to Mexico.

As above I plan to use illegal labor.

 

8. Taking Penn and Teller with anything greater than a grain of salt would be along the same lines as voting for Alfred E Neuman

 

 

9. Contrary to what El Presidenta and Mr Obama say, it is Mexico's fault, not US' nor the NRA's fault, that Mexican drug cartels are killing each other, law abiding citizens of both countries and law enforcement.

 

10. Calling someone that is in this country illegally an "immigrant" is akin to calling a sex offender a lover.

 

But:

We can not round up and deport 12-30 million illegals.

 

We need these 12-30 million illegals to pay taxes and spend their income here to help OUR economy and to stop sending their illgotten gains (many billions of dollars) to Mexico.

 

The only way to save Social Security is to grant amnesty.

 

As soon as we grant amnesty, the flood gates will again open as they did in 1987; the last time we granted amnesty.

[Pangloss]

I would love to know the relationship between the failure rate of crossing, the number of employers seeking illegal alien labor, and the number of illegals in the country.

 

Seems like a good question, because then we'll be better able to find and arrest them. The employers, I mean -- because they're breaking the law.

 

I'd also like to know where I can find a lawn care specialist that charges twice as much money and doesn't do a half-assed job. I don't really care what language he speaks, but I bet if there was more money in it he'd be able to hire a better worker.

 

 

Twice as many Mexican families may loose a huge amount of their savings paying coyotes to get them across because twice as many get caught trying - but until they start calling south and complaining that it's hard to find illegal labor jobs to do, they'll keep coming to fill the void.

 

I agree.

 

 

The only way to erode this from the supply side is to make it so difficult on employers to find reliable illegals that it's cheaper for them to higher legal employees. I agree the stricter border is part of the solution, but that much bigger returns and accomplishments can be made on the demand side.

 

I agree.

 

Like putting more pressure on employers who break the law.

 

 

But:

We can not round up and deport 12-30 million illegals.

 

We need these 12-30 million illegals to pay taxes and spend their income here to help OUR economy and to stop sending their illgotten gains (many billions of dollars) to Mexico.

 

The only way to save Social Security is to grant amnesty.

 

As soon as we grant amnesty' date=' the flood gates will again open as they did in 1987; the last time we granted amnesty.[/quote']

 

Nicely summed -- that's the catch-22 in a nutshell. But the great thing about it is that it's completely solvable and the path is very clear. Improve border security and tighten restrictions on hiring so that we won't have a massive floodgate-opening again. Then give the ones already here a direct and clear path to citizenship.

[bascule]

I actually saw that episode of Bullsh*t, and as much as I love Penn & Teller and their great way of cutting through the BS and getting to more important issues, I really think they blew it on this. And I'm not the only one who thinks so -- many libertarians think that controlling the border is a valid thing for government to do, especially in light of terrorism, etc.

 

There's a huge difference between "controlling the border" and "let's build a fence!" I think Penn & Teller did an excellent job of demonstrating how building a fence does not control the border. It's a classic case of "I have a rock that keeps tigers away." A fence is an expensive and easily circumvented barrier. Building a fence is pointless unless it works, and it doesn't.

 

And I simply don't buy this "it's too big to control" argument, or the "it's too expensive to control" argument.

 

Perhaps you'd care to explain the huge population of illegal immigrants in our country then? Or perhaps you think if just we built a little bit more fence the problem would be solved...

 

The simple application of technology, physical barricade and manpower has been clearly shown to be more than sufficient to send infiltrators to other sections of the border that are more easily accessed, yes? We all agree that this currently happens, right?

 

Sometimes it happens. Other times the fences are circumvented. Just as an example:

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm

 

Tunnel passages across an international border into the United States have become a real problem. There are 40 such tunnels that have been discovered since 9/11, and the great bulk of them are on the southern border. Large-scale smuggling of drugs, weapons, and immigrants takes place today through these tunnels. One tunnel running from San Diego to Tijuana was marked by inordinate sophistication. It was a half mile long. It went 60 to 80 feet deep, 8 feet tall. It had a concrete floor. It was wired for electricity. It had drainage. At one end, 300 pounds of marijuana were found, and at the other end, 300 pounds of marijuana. What was interesting is that the California entry into the tunnel was a very modern warehouse, a huge warehouse compartmented but empty and kept empty for a year. In one office there was a hatch in the floor. It looked much like the hatch which Saddam had secreted himself in. But lifting that hatch disclosed a very sophisticated tunnel. It went under other buildings all the way across the double fence into Mexico and up in Mexico in a building as well.

 

So if the question is merely "what will they do when the whole thing rises to the level that pushed them to easier paths", then I think you have to do that and THEN see what happens.

 

Yes, let's just keep throwing good money after bad, because perhaps everything will magically work eventually, even though there's no evidence that's actually the case. I have seen zero evidence that border fences are effective at preventing illegal immigration, any more so than preventing me from taking more than 3oz of hair gel onto an airplane prevents terrorism. But hey, I guess you think that magical rock really will keep tigers away.

[Pangloss]

There's a huge difference between "controlling the border" and "let's build a fence!" I think Penn & Teller did an excellent job of demonstrating how building a fence does not control the border. It's a classic case of "I have a rock that keeps tigers away." A fence is an expensive and easily circumvented barrier. Building a fence is pointless unless it works, and it doesn't.

 

Well that's your opinion. I'm open to other methods of controlling the border, but I won't support amnesty until we do.

 

 

And I simply don't buy this "it's too big to control" argument' date=' or the "it's too expensive to control" argument.

[/quote']

Perhaps you'd care to explain the huge population of illegal immigrants in our country then? Or perhaps you think if just we built a little bit more fence the problem would be solved...

 

But hey, I guess you think that magical rock really will keep tigers away.

 

Post more maturely, please. Sarcasm is not an argument.

 

My argument is that we haven't put forth a sufficient effort to draw a conclusion like "it's too big to control". The reason we haven't done so is (in my opinion) because we've hogtied ourselves with ideological posturing put forth in place of reason and common sense. Not that I'm saying that it's illogical to question the value of fencing -- I respect much of what Penn & Teller were saying. But ultimately I don't buy the argument because their example was a typical straw man: One very simple type of fence, with no other ideas or approaches attempted, and then a broad generalization leveled -- contrary to reason.

 

 

Tunnel passages across an international border into the United States have become a real problem.

 

That's a good point, and I agree that that's happened in some places. But aren't those tunnels mainly about drug smuggling, not illegal immigration? I wonder why that is?

 

Seems like something deserving of more study, not sweeping generalizations about the pointlessness of securing the border.

[iNow]

Post more maturely, please. Sarcasm is not an argument.

 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Pangloss]

Ditto.

[bascule]

Post more maturely, please. Sarcasm is not an argument.

 

I really do like the "rock that keeps tigers away" analogy, but perhaps it isn't applicable here, because in this case the rock isn't keeping the tigers away.

 

My argument is that we haven't put forth a sufficient effort to draw a conclusion like "it's too big to control".

 

I'm not arguing that the border is "too big to control" (not sure who you're quoting there). I'm arguing the fence is ineffective.

 

But hey, if the rock isn't keeping tigers away, clearly what we need is a bigger rock.

[padren]

Seems like a good question, because then we'll be better able to find and arrest them. The employers, I mean -- because they're breaking the law.

 

I'd also like to know where I can find a lawn care specialist that charges twice as much money and doesn't do a half-assed job. I don't really care what language he speaks, but I bet if there was more money in it he'd be able to hire a better worker.

 

I agree.

 

I agree.

 

Like putting more pressure on employers who break the law.

 

Do you agree with my assessment then that while it is important to secure the border better, that the priority in dedication of resources should emphasize tackling the employers as the primary concern before tackling border jumpers?

 

I could be entirely wrong - it could be that any given year, employers wish they could hire more illegals but they just can't find enough because border patrol is so good. I doubt that's the case, the largest thing stopping people from crossing is when their buddies who already did tell them "No, these guys have enough already and a lot of people are hanging around just waiting for a spot, it'll be rough for the rest of the season."

If that is the main limit on illegals here, and the number of crossing attempts varies to meet that demand, then we can much more easily drop those numbers by stopping employers. Then they can call their buddies and say "No, these guys have enough already and a lot of people are hanging around because so many places got cracked down on and can't hire us anymore, it'll be rough for the rest of the season."

 

Then we can much more easily deal with the border, as there will always be desperate ones that try anyway.

 

 

Just as a side note: border security needs to be stepped up for a lot of reasons. It always worries me that if people and drugs can move so easily across, then it's a weak spot in national security. It's worth addressing as a real problem, but the fact it's getting rushed by illegals only exasperates the other factors, and it's one of the only motivations we can address through the demand side.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm not arguing that the border is "too big to control" (not sure who you're quoting there). I'm arguing the fence is ineffective.

 

But hey, if the rock isn't keeping tigers away, clearly what we need is a bigger rock.

 

I'd describe it more as a cake and ant problem: ants like cake, and will seek out cake. You can stop as many ants as you want, but they will want to keep coming until the cake is gone.

 

Instead of more, bigger rocks to throw at more and more ants, we just need to put the cake in a plastic container (crack down on employers offering cake).

To stretch the analogy, there will always be crumbs, but far fewer ants will be coming after them and then in small enough numbers to be manageable by small and efficient Cake Patrol Units.

[swansont]

It doesn't have to be cost-effective, it has to stop most of the people who are trying to get in.

 

 

But a solution that costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year probably won't be nearly as popular as one that costs one billion when it comes time to pay for it, so I think it does need to be cost-effective. And in any event, it has to actually work, and recreating the Maginot line probably won't.

[pioneer]

I believe in fairness when it comes to the illegal alien debate. The best solution is fair for all. To make this fair for all, some minor changes can be made. Places like California, which appear to welcome illegals, should be the places the illegals are induced to go. If they are not welcome in Arizona that should be made known so it is fair to Arizona and the illegals. Provisions could made to migrate to NY and California. It may be cheaper for Arizona to supply buses. It will be fair to more people including the illegals.

 

Next, one of the main concerns to some people, even in welcome states like California, is the cost. Not everyone sees the expense in quite the same way, with democrats far more generous. As such, to make it fair, maybe we can have a targeted surtax on the those who support the expense, so they can put their money where there mouth is and pay all the tab.

 

The final effect is those being generous in words can be generous where it counts, those concerned about costs will not be troubled with extra expense, and the illegals will be in states that welcome them. It is all fair. On the other hand, if treachery is the goal, this is done differently.

[Pangloss]

But a solution that costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year probably won't be nearly as popular as one that costs one billion when it comes time to pay for it, so I think it does need to be cost-effective. And in any event, it has to actually work, and recreating the Maginot line probably won't.

 

Fair enough.

[CharonY]

The more I think about it, the more it appears that this laws actually does not empower police but rather puts them in a tight spot. If they do not control someone and something happens, they may be sued as the law requires them to act upon suspicion (whatever that may be). On the other, if they do, they may be accused of racial profiling.

[ecoli]

The more I think about it, the more it appears that this laws actually does not empower police but rather puts them in a tight spot. If they do not control someone and something happens, they may be sued as the law requires them to act upon suspicion (whatever that may be). On the other, if they do, they may be accused of racial profiling.

 

Whatever happens, the hindsight bias wins.

[Pangloss]

The Annenburg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org Web site, which is known for its objective analysis, posted a new analysis of the law yesterday, which can be found here:

 

http://factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

 

In a nutshell, they do feel that it allows some (undetermined) amount of racial profiling, but that it's within the bounds already permitted by federal law.

 

In an annotated version of the law reprinted by The Arizona Republic, University of Arizona law professor Gabriel Chin writes that there are "many open questions" regarding whether race could be used in enforcing S.B. 1070. But he also said, "I am deeply surprised that anyone construes this law to prohibit racial profiling."

 

According to the Supreme Court case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, "Mexican appearance" can be a factor justifying an immigration stop. But 24 years later the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in United States v. Montero-Camargo, ruled that “Hispanic appearance is not, in general, an appropriate factor” for determining suspicion, especially in areas with large Hispanic populations. “This makes it more complex whether race can be a factor in an immigration stop in the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, which includes Arizona,” Johnson told us.

 

So, does the law allow racial or ethnic profiling? It may, though no more than it’s already allowed under current law. But that’s a different question from whether or not such profiling will be used to a greater extent by Arizona law enforcement as a result of the legislation, which remains to be seen.

 

My biggest beef with opponents of the Arizona law is that they're standing back from the fray, where it's nice and comfy and safe, and playing mental exercises while Arizonans face real, daily problems. Society regularly and repeatedly refuses to resolve this issue for reasons that are mainly ideological in nature, and that can't continue indefinitely.

[CharonY]

Uh, just out of curiosity, what daily challenges do Arizonans face?

[Pangloss]

Of primary concern to Arizonans is security. Whether it's illegals committing heinous crimes (which certainly happens, if not to the extent that the right likes to say that it does), or even just getting caught mowing people down while drunk driving, or to the other extreme, skirmishing drug smugglers from various cartels, these people have a right to expect their federal government to guard the border.

 

Of secondary concern is labor. Sure, the illegals take jobs that Americans don't want, but not because Americans don't want them, it's because the pay is too low. Is it really that important that I be able to get my lawn cut four times a month for fifteen dollars? Those jobs aren't low-paying because they're menial, they're low-paying because there's a ready labor pool willing to work for those wages. Remove the labor pool and suddenly you're creating higher-paying jobs for Americans. Isn't that what the left says it wants? Isn't it going to start demanding higher pay for those jobs eventually anyway, once it gets those people the amnesty that their ideology demands that they get first?

 

But I think the important thing is that we not play ideological games with serious, daily, boots-on-the-ground concerns. These hispanic protest marches, for example, are every bit as disturbing to me as the mobilization of the religious right during the Bush years, and should be every bit as disturbing to this community for the exact same reason -- they represent ignorance being lead by demagoguery.

 

The notion that one cannot secure the border without being racist should be ANATHEMA to every American, not because it's true but because it ISN'T. But instead of being up in arms about the illogic of that position, we ignore it and pretend it isn't common, while at the exact same time hundreds of thousands of hispanics are lead around by the nose right in front of our faces, told that that IS the case. These people are lead by politicians who are in office right now. And yet people just sit there, ignore that this is happening, and post jokes about Sarah Palin, as if that is somehow completely different.

 

Anyway, I digress, but I think I've answered your question.

[ecoli]

Fair enough, Pangloss, but I have to wonder if these hispanic protest marches wouldn't seem so disturbing if they didn't feel like their existence and rights as citizens (or non-citizens) were being threatened.

[Pangloss]

I'm sure you're right. And that's exactly how many on the right feel when they listen to people from your "culturally diverse" city talk about how their way of life needs to change.

[ecoli]

I'm sure you're right. And that's exactly how many on the right feel when they listen to people from your "culturally diverse" city talk about how their way of life needs to change.

Cultural preservation is not a right, as far as I'm aware.

 

What I mean is: there is no law saying that immigration should be stopped if the WASPs feel overwhelmed by the influx of Mexican immigrants. What many on the right feel is that they should be allowed to use the federal government purposefully engineer the make-up of society to preserve their cultural legacy.

 

Now, is possible that some immigrant groups feel the same way. But, at least for now, these are the political minority. I see no evidence that the vast majority of immigrants don't want to integrate into American society just as every other large immigrant group has done in the past.

 

So yes, the way of life needs to change for current residents and immigrants. To stop it from not changing would be as fruitless as stopping the trade of goods and services. These things make us better off, not worse. No matter how scared the protectionists seem to be.

[Pangloss]

I wasn't talking about cultural preservation. You talk about the flyover states like they need to be adjusted, corrected, changed, etc. I believe you're flat-out wrong in that perspective. They're hardly perfect, but your premise is not only incorrect, but also counter-productive. People don't like being told all the time that they're wrong. That is the single biggest reason for Fox News Channel's success, in my opinion.

 

Getting back to the point, you said that "hispanic protest marches wouldn't seem so disturbing if they didn't feel like their existence and rights as citizens (or non-citizens) were being threatened". It hasn't been demonstrated that they ARE threatened, and my point is that this is precisely comparable with the religious right feeling that their rights as citizens were being directly threatened as well. Perhaps not so much their right to existence, but very much their rights as citizens.

 

The comparison is doubly apt because in both cases these are groups of people who are being mislead by political ideologies that have zero interest in their situation. They're pawns. A means to an end.

[Rickdog]

What ?

 

I live more than a FIVE THOUSAND MILES, from Arizona in a completely diferent American country, in a diferent hemysphere, where the local laws from back there don`t really affect me, but I can`t say that these laws that are being tried to establish back there doesn`t constitute a threat for me. Back here it really feels threatining my friend, and I can tell you that I don`t have the least concern of who ever runs your country politically speaking, but a law as this one, if ever is adopted by other states in the USA, it will sure feel as a menace to us all, hyspanics, on behalf of your country, a country for whom I have my best feelings for, and for whom throughout history has been a source for inspiration for all of us, my friend.

 

It would feel as a stabb in the back from whom, you consider to be your brother, my friend.

 

Get it right, IT IS, a threat to us hyspanic american people, I wish I would be a bit closer, in order be able to join in those marches.

 

(Now I`m getting full of anger, better get out of here, before I start showing how "hot" our hyspanic blood can boil, )