LA to boycott Arizona
Let the trade wars begin!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/12/los-a…
OK some Q's
1.) Would this violate Constitutional Law? I thought states couldn't boycott other states or maybe that is impose tariffs? lolz
2.) Will this make oil slide b/c LA will have no more power(I guess LA pulled a Latino enronololz)?
2.) Will this be the end of UBS LA ?
4.) What will happen to Long Island Ice Tea?
5.) When will the Avatar of Zeus BARRACK OBAMA yield fourth a solution to this?
6.) i BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW THERE IS NO 3 LOL
What is your input?
Nice post.
LA is a joke. I hope their debt swallows them, Cajun style. Also why is constantly being referred to as the 'immigration' bill. Isn't actually called the ILLEGAL immigration bill? It really wasn't until this event that I noticed how liberal the media is. I used to just think it was a Sarah Palin conspiracy theory
@5) - Obama will have a beer summit with Jan Brewer and Julio my gardener
they can do whatever the hell they want with arizona iced tea, i dont give a fuck. but the second they try to impose some embargos or tariffs on long island iced teas, bitches are going to flip a shit. which means now i have to mack cougars that are already pissed off they cant get their drink of choice
WTF
as far as the bill goes, i dont see what the fuck the issue is. if your ass is walking around germany and the polizei comes up to you and says "deine papiere bitte"...1) you prob dont know what the fuck he is saying and 2) if you dont have your passport or a visa isn't it logical that they ship your ass home?
In the US we have this Constitution thing, it's one of the main things that has separated us from the Germans in the last 100 years.
Constitution is for US citizens only. I fail to see how stopping people from coming to this country illegal is a problem. What really makes me sick is all the Hispanic voters who are against this bill. They need to wake up and realize that they are AMERICANS now and stop supporting illegal immigration. You want to come here then go through all the normal crap that we all have gone through at one point in time. No one is against LEGAL immigration.
You know your country is going down the tubes when we cannot even stop people from coming here illegally. Every other country in the world stops people from being there illegally, but somehow we cant do it.
As I understand it, the police can only ask someone to prove legal status if they are caught breaking the law.. "Lisense and registration, sir"
There is actually a Federal law that basically says the same thing except now the law may actually be enforced.
Jeez, just because a border patrol officer is assualted by illegals every 8 hours, and the kidnapping rate in Pheonix has gone up 46% in three years ( to the rate of one every 35 hours!!) doesn't mean we should start enforcing laws or guarding our borders like a sovereign nation. That would be racist.
How can people possibly compare this to what the Nazis did in the 30s and 40s?
I'm disappointed that all of you are mindlessly buying the party line on this (although, judging by poll numbers, I probably shouldn't be). What if you're an American citizen who is Hispanic? Say, a cop thinks you look suspicious - he notices you "loitering", so now he has a legitimate excuse to stop you - he asks you for your papers, and because you're a god-damn American citizen, you tell him where he can shove his request for your papers - and then because he's a redneck Arizona cop, he decides to knock you around a bit and haul you down to the station? I bet none of you would like that very much, would you? Fortunately, I'm sure you're all white, so you don't have to worry about that. But what if we were talking about Canadians entering illegally, and all of a sudden you had to show papers to prove you're an American? I doubt you would be so supportful of the law then - and if you would be, that just shows you're a coward. This law is racist, wrong, and offensive. If the Republicans are serious about being a national party in the future, it's going to be rather difficult to accomplish if they let the far-right elements of the party write off the Hispanic vote. This law is nothing but a political ploy that will waste Arizonian taxpayers' money, make everyone with half a brain (sadly, judging by polls, a distinct minority) hate the Republicans, and generally lead to a further degradation of any sort of civil liberties. If you want to talk about upholding the values of the founding fathers, as these disingenuous teapartiers like to, it might be time to get in touch with what they actually believed.
The point is, you have to decide if it's worth having Hispanic American citizens stopped every once in a while so that those who are here illegally can be caught. Anyone that mouths off to a cop, white or Hispanic, is not going to be treated with the utmost kindness.
It would depend on the exact circumstance, but if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that I'm breaking the law, he can request ID. I can tell him to go to hell, because there's no law that I have to carry ID when I go to a football game. The only thing I'm required to tell police is my name (1), unless I'm driving, in which case I've given implicit permissions by using government property. And if a cop doesn't take kindly to me refusing to identify myself, I'm not going to content myself with winning in court. I'd probably press criminal and civil charges against him, the department, and the stadium.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of…
Very welll said!, LMAO!
Do you really think the chance that some Hispanic American gets his feelings hurt is not worth trying to protect the rest of the country from the thousands of illegals streaming through the state? We have consistently failed as a country to pass anything to improve the illegal immigration problem our country is facing and have left states like Arizona to fend for themselves. This is what happens. Also, following on your example, if that hispanic citizen was a responsible member of society than he would understand the extreme issues we have with illegal immigration and should happily supply the correct documentation. I'm an American citizen and would be fine with proving it.
Instead of criticizing Arizona's law for how horrible it could make hispanic americans feel, come up with a better way to deal with the much bigger issue of ILLEGAL immigration and its negative effects on society. Your calling out Republicans because Arizona had to finally take a stand when no one else would help them? Democrats have control of Congress and the Presidency, call on them to take action.
On top of that, the Canadian and Mexican borders are not comparable because the Canadian border states do not experience the problems states like Arizona do. If the situation were reversed I would feel the same way about the law being imposed on our northern border.
Firstly, "illegal" immigration is not a problem. Our inability to agree on the basic facts of this debate will likely mean we disagree regardless of what I say, but I'd like to begin by addressing that, because it is an incorrect and prejudiced assumption. "Illegal" immigrants coming to America is the result of the demand for their services - if Arizonians are really willing to do those jobs at the same wages and same quality, then it would not be an issue. "Illegal" immigration is a demand-side issue; as long as there are jobs here for Mexicans, or Poles, or Canadians, they are going to come. Mexico is close, and wages there are low, so most of the "illegal" immigrants are from there, and consequently public anger is concentrated at those who share their skin color. The answer to "illegal" immigration is not building a better fence, or having more cameras, or asking Big Brother if he'd kindly take control, but just until this pesky immigration problem goes away. It is immigration reform, an issue that desperately needs to be addressed (1). The kidnapping numbers cited are not the result of "illegal" immigrants coming here to mow peoples' yards for $5/hour - they are the result of actual criminals (2), and I've never seen a study that showed illegal immigration as a casual factor for kidnapping.
Now, we disagree on the fact that there even is a problem, but I will attempt to address the rest of your issues. Firstly, when police are required to request identification of anyone they suspect of being an "illegal" immigrant, and come in to lawful contact with, do you really imagine that will have no side-effects? Say you are being assaulted by someone on the street - an "illegal" immigrant comes across you and runs for help - but wait, if he asks that policeman on the corner to come help you, he may just get deported back home. Do you imagine he'll be quite so altruistic then? Or say your ten-year-old son is walking along the street, and is lost - he asks the nice policeman for directions, because mom told him not to talk to strangers, but his skin-color makes the officer suspicious (3), so he asks for his papers. Oh no, little Johnny is ten - he doesn't have papers! Should we require that Johnny carry papers, for "the good of the people (4)." Not to worry, "illegal" immigration is such an "extreme issue" that any American should be happy to do his bit to combat its spread.
For all of the "Tea Partiers" claims that this is no big deal, they might remember that the catalyst for the actual tea party was a requirement that everyone have papers for their regular activities (5). I'm sorry to hear that you'd have no problem with being required to carry your papers everywhere - remind me not to get in to a foxhole with you.
(1) Unfortunately, we have a polarised congress in which any attempt to address immigration means we can't deal with other equally pressing issues, such as climate change legislation, as congress apparently lacks the capacity to decide on two issues simultaneously (2) Mexican drug gangs are, again, a demand-side phenomenon we are unwilling to address at any level beyond locking up a lot of black men (3) I know, ridiculous of me to imply racial profiling could be at play - the officer was clearly aroused by his asking for directions - after all, only "illegal" immigrants get lost (4) The "volk," if you will (5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765
I'm not going to get involved too deeply into a political debate since it is not the reason I come to this site. Still, on a parting note, you say illegal immigration is not a problem it is simply a demand issue. Demand is that high because of how easily accessible cheap labor is. I'm not saying we could ever completely end illegal immigration but significantly improving the situation would force another solution. Most likely, the wages would have to be raised reflected in greater price to the consumer. It might not be what Arizonians want to pay but it shouldn't be optional.
Also, trust me I'm not a fan of looking to the government to solve all our problems but I think securing the borders falls within its role. Illegal immigration is much more dangerous than you make it appear, not just mexicans looking to work can come into the US but anyone who wants to come to the US undetected can come through mexico.
While you're legal points are correct and I commend you for your scholarly research, in my specific example you fail to make a clear observation, something which does not surprise me considering the lack of a football team at your school and probably limited quality tailgating experience.
While tailgating outside of a football game, 21 or not, you are (at least in all the states I know of) breaking a law - drinking in public. It is overlooked in certain circumstances, places such as Bourbon St, Las Vegas, and college football games just to name a few. In these situations, if you are drinking or holding an open container, you can be arrested, however given the nature of the activity, the police choose to allow individuals to drink, so long as they keep themselves under control and follow the rules. So sure, go ahead and tell the cop to go to hell - you will without a doubt receive a public intoxication citation, ID or not. They'll figure out exactly who you are once you're at the station sobering up in the drunk tank while all your buddies who have the common sense to simply show and ID or properly identify themselves by another method are enjoying the game.
Such was my point in mentioning "specific circumstances" - I'm aware of the public drinking laws, which I think made the tailgating example inapplicable as a wider point. If I'm drinking in public, I accept that an officer can ask me for identification - I could always decline, but it's not likely to go too well. If, however, I were drinking at a football game in Louisiana (where the law is not "overlooked" - there simply is no open container law in LA), I would definitely feel comfortable declining to provide identification.
To move from politics to economics, you're confusing the demand curve with quantity demanded - I accept that making "illegal" immigration more difficult would move the quantity demanded, but that's actually because you'd be moving the supply curve, and thus shifting inward the point at which the demand and supply curves intersect. If such did occur, wages would rise and quantity consumed would fall - that's a normative judgement to make, but I generally believe it is society's best interests to aspire to a higher level of output than to raise individual wages, while constraining output. To put it in other terms, unions raise the wage by lowering the quantity of labour consumed - is that something you think is in society's best interests?
As to the second point, I can accept that borders are important for national security. When I'm entering the country, I have no problem showing my passport, and even answering a few questions (1). However, I do not think that racial profiling is a the way we should be combating crime - yes, I know black people commit more crimes, and Arabs are more likely to be terrorists, but if I were black or Arabic, I don't think I'd be very happy about being pulled over every five minutes on that basis - so I don't think we should do so. And yes, I'm willing to accept a slightly higher crime level in exchange.
(1) Though, you don't have to answer the questions at CPB if you don't want to - long discussion on this theme at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1077609-detained-…
A) Profiling does not equal being pulled over "every fire minutes." There is empirical evidence for this as several nations do have a history of profiling for variety of different reasons (with mixed results).
B) It is just asinine to be willing to accept a higher crime level in exchange for the relatively minor impact upon "feelings" that you are referring to. If you want to hurt people's feelings for real, strip them naked in the streets, put them in a cage, etc, then I'll buy that people's "feelings" are being hurt. Yours is a suicidal level of sensitivity.
Not that this is law is even close to racial profiling. If we are so sensitive that we equate racial profiling to a check made upon a person who has already given up his/her right to not be harassed by police as he/she has caused adequate criminal suspicion to be stopped, then we have reached a level of sensitivity as a nation where it would be impossible to combat crime/illegal immigration in any meaningful capacity.
There is only one thing to say... Hopefully Arizona will be the last state to do this instead of the first. This SB 1070 is just making things worse and it is very discriminatory.
do you realize that we pay for the illegal's medical bills? these scum bags come into our country, walk around snobbishly with their nose in the air taunting us- we know their illegal, they know their illegal, but noting will happen to them- we have been dealing with this shit for too long. They have their little "may day" rallies and where is ICE to round them up and ship them home? This is bull sh*** that you are defending them. It's just like OJ Simpson- we all know he killed her but he was walking around as if nothing happened. Having all of these illegals is an absolute insult to anyone who is here LEGALLY.
It's not rational to engage someone who doesn't know the difference between May Day (a communist holiday) and Cinco de Mayo, so I won't.
I don't think "illegal" immigration is nearly as black and white as you paint it. I, personally, have no problem with foreigners coming to the US and competing evenly for jobs - throwing up the borders unequivocally is probably not a great move due to the fact supply would likely exceed demand in the short-run, so some restraint is justified, but I certainly think current US policy is jingoistic, harmful, and suboptimal from a utility optimising perspective. From an historical perspective, my family were once immigrants to the US; I see no reason to treat someone else differently than I would have wanted my ancestors treated. And if you go further back, I really don't think our record with respect to the original inhabitants of America gives us the right to moralise to anyone, and said statement goes just as much for Australia.
I would disagree with your conclusions in three respects. Firstly, as the Dallas Fed paper explicitly acknowledges, "legal" immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the native population (1). Secondly, the Fed paper speculates that the rise in crime is a demand phenomenon, driven by US demand for drugs rather than cheap labour, which is in line with most conclusions I've seen on the subject. Further, they view the catalyst for increased crime as increased enforcement: "The earliest signs of the change may have come with the onset of the ‘war on drugs’ in the 1980s" (2). Further, the paper concludes that increased enforcement has has no impact on border crime since 1999, and stopped having an effect on violent crime in 1997 (3). More recently, I've seen writing (though nothing quantitative) suggesting that increased enforcement may in fact be raising crime levels, by consolidating the market (4). I will give you that you can take issue with the methodology of Coronado & Orrenius's study (5), but their conclusions point in exactly the opposite direction of your contention: "As expected, increases in legal immigration appear negatively and significantly associated with overall crime and property crime, whereas increases in the number of non-immigrants are positively correlated with overall and property crime" (6).
In short, this study seems to suggest that "illegal" immigration does not cause crime a priori, but that it is the exogenous decision to make said immigration illegal that causes a rise in crime. Further, it and other research points to declining (and inverse) returns to increased enforcement. As you say, we should address the problem through more moral means; namely, substantially reforming immigration law so that there exists a way to turn "illegal" immigrants in to legal workers.
(1) "among 18-40-year-old men in the United States, immigrants were less likely than the native-born to be institutionalized (that is, in correctional facilities, mental hospitals, or other institutions), and much less likely to be institutionalized than native-born men with similar demographic characteristics." Butcher & Piehl, p.654, "Recent Immigrants: Unexpected Implications for Crime and Incarcetation." 1998. (2) Coronado & Orrenius, "The Impact Of Illegal Immigration And Enforcement On Border Crime Rates." 2003. (3) "The estimates imply that after May 1999, additional increases in linewatch hours have had zero impact on the border crime rate (the crossover points are October 2000 for property crime and October 1997 for violent crime)." Coronado & Orrenius, (2003), pp. 7-8. (4) "Worse, U.S. efforts to make moving drugs across the border more difficult might be having the opposite effect: consolidating the illicit drug business into fewer and fewer hands and making the surviving heavyweights more difficult to defeat. The United States is, in essence, arming the drug cartels as it fights the drug war." Bergman, "Creating New Soldiers in Mexico's Drug War." Foreign Policy, May 17, 2010. (5) Specifically, the endogeneity of border patrols and crime is not as unlikely as they suggest. See Coronado & Orrenius, (2003), pp. 7-8, 19. (6) Coronado & Orrenius, (2003), p. 16.
At the risk of inviting an attack, I would like to summarise thusly: Illegal immigration is bad. Laws aimed at preventing this are good, as long as they do not impinge unduly on the rights of legal residents. Clearly the law falls into a grey area, where some feel the infringement upon human rights is necessary and others feel it is not a price worth paying - however, actually attempting to portray illegal immigration as a positive is ridiculous.
As an Australian I am ever thankful for my country having probably the strictest immigration policy in the West (I am aware of the irony seeing as I live in London).
Quote:
“Firstly, "illegal" immigration is not a problem… "Illegal" immigrants coming to America is the result of the demand for their services.
I’m not sure about this. Your statement applies to 95%+ of the illegals – they are just people looking for work and come here due to demand (perceived or actual) for illegal immigrant labor. However, it seems that this law was driven by the other 5% (or whatever small minority). It is foolish to dismiss out of hand the notion that violent crime is unrelated to illegal immigration (http://dallasfedbackup.org/research/papers/2003/wp0303.pdf).
The small percentage of people committing the crimes (kidnapping, robbing and shootings) most certainly did NOT come here as “the result of the demand for their services.” The fear of hard core criminals – rather than the resentment of immigrant laborers who drive wages down – has driven the most recent backlash against illegals in AZ.
I personally am against this law, due mainly to the “slippery slope” element. However, I take a very different stance than you and most liberals. This bills is akin to the ghetto riots of the 60’s. It is grossly wrong, but it should make you wonder what the hell is going on over there – How bad is the problem? It must really be awful in Arizona for them to take such drastic measures.
The federal government has not solved the problem. The people in the state feel powerless and they passed an arguably unconstitutional law. Rather than criticize the people there we should actually try to understand the situation and address the problem through more moral and just means.
@ drexel: they called their rally in may "May Day"
This is very simple: if a police officer has reasonable suspicion to believe you are NOT an American citizen, they can ask for some sort of corroborating documents.
How is this different from everyday life in the United States of America?
IT'S NOT. The police can ask you for documents proving who you are anytime and anywhere. And you have to give them up.
Do you even live in America?
I think the law should try to make it similar to a cop asking for your license when pulled over. Drivers are supposed to carry their licenses and can be fined if they do not. Young looking kids probably get pulled over, especially after midnight - since they can't drive with more than 2 people after midnight. It really is not that big of a pain to carry my license around, so if the law became similar to this I think it is fine.
Sorry, I misunderstood something I heard earlier stating that you in fact don't have to carry ID on you. However, I'm looking at this from a logical point of view. While technically it's not legal for them to stop and question you for no reason, reasonable suspicion is as simple as, "he looked nervous and I thought he could be involved with a drug deal."
drex: 1) www.theagitator.com
I'm all too aware, but that doesn't mean we should condone or accept it. I'm fortunate enough to have been born in a town where we fire police officers for giving too many speeding tickets; I can only imagine what would happen if one tried to pull some of the shit cops elsewhere do.
I understand your pain :-p For a while I thought about joining with CATO or possibly becoming a reporter, but then I realized that there aren't enough people around that want to help themselves, so, meh. Gonna make $$$ and retire to Puerto Rico when Im 40 :-p
Eum totam et rerum tempora. Rem qui laborum voluptatem deserunt voluptatum eos porro. Et praesentium velit ipsa nam sit aut.
Consectetur qui aut sit odio quos. Necessitatibus quis quo et consequatur sed. Quasi consequatur illo omnis rerum et.
Praesentium illo consectetur in dolores numquam perspiciatis. Rerum et dolor molestiae. Fugiat aut omnis libero omnis perferendis. Ipsum nisi atque libero placeat debitis. Laboriosam ducimus neque nihil dolorem quasi qui.
Vel qui beatae et ut maxime voluptatem. Similique error ea ipsam consectetur corrupti ut. Aut vero dolor molestias praesentium modi quisquam fugiat.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ut at ratione quod ut. Autem placeat nisi magnam voluptatem unde minima. Quos ipsa placeat dolorum impedit est similique doloribus.
Aut maiores consequuntur voluptatem veritatis nihil. Qui ullam quae qui numquam. Quas temporibus in et adipisci architecto. Dignissimos pariatur debitis illo earum reprehenderit soluta. Maiores eum enim et quisquam dolorum. Temporibus deleniti quaerat nemo voluptatem.
Sed molestiae est sunt sunt delectus. Eveniet voluptate pariatur autem ipsa ullam. Animi velit sed aut ullam. Ipsa dolorem alias minus. Velit quas illum voluptas veritatis eos quae.