More and more states are going to go this route unless/until the Federal Government is willing to fulfill their primary duty of protecting it's citizens.
It's a sad state of affairs when a state has to act because the Federal Government has failed to do so, even though we pay tax dollars for them to do just that. It's even more sad when you realize the primary reason both parties have failed to act is fear of (no pun intended) alienating the Hispanic vote.
I'm fine with this so long as it's done to protect local citizens from genuine crime perpetrated by the illegals. I'm kinda fine with it if it is to make it harder forlocal businessmen to take jobs away from citizens and give them to illegals who they pay very little to under the table or as a drain on the local economy depriving citizens of basic services. But I'm not fine with it if just some sort of "get 'em back to Mexico" garbage.
Agree...and I don't know of many who are looking at this like "get the brownies out of our Amurrica!" Seems that the only ones that should be peeved by this are the criminal ones. Documented (legal) immigrants have a much better opportunity at a quality standard of life than those being used to run drugs, do farming for sandwiches, etc.
Oddly enough, I think this is an excellent example of states rights in action. A lot of people on the right say these illegals are taking hard-working American jobs and an unpaid burden on our social services. A lot on the left say they do jobs nobody wants, and the net impact on the economy is actually pretty positive. The two sides shout at each other year after year, solving nothing. Nothing happens on the federal level because nobody can agree on what to do (other than shout). Well, now Arizona has decided to make a test case out of itself. Although I personally think it's bad policy, it's actually an interesting way to see what happens when you drive a ton of illegal immigrants (and probably some perfectly legal immigrants who are just pissed off) out of a state. This is exactly the sort of thing the founders wanted when they set up this country. Fifty different states trying their own solutions, with the best ones being adopted by the rest. Particularly effective when federal policy hits a brick wall, as it has on this issue since the 1980's. My prediction is that, assuming the law stands and is enforceable, a lot of hispanic communities just evaporate over the coming years, taking their businesses with them. The hardcore thugs will remain, because smuggling is too lucrative. So you'll have a lot of neighborhoods that used to be productive turn into boarded up buildings highlighted by sporadic violence. South Central LA meets Cleveland. But I could be wrong, I admit. I guess we'll all get to see.
Curious, mook...why would someone who came to the US legally pack up and go b/c of this law? Not being hispanic, I don't have any idea...but is there some racial-bound solidarity that says you have to leave if the criminals are kicked out? And what's the problem with telling the illegal ones being deported "hey, you can come back if you go through the process"? How is that bad? You mean like Detroit?
Imagine you are a legal US citizen with two kids. Your girlfriend is illegal. Your mom also lives in Arizona legally, but she has an illegal for a boyfriend too. You own a small business. You get stopped by a cop. You don't have a drivers license on you, so he takes you downtown. You get it cleared up, but suddenly you are scared for your squeeze and your mom's squeeze. (Where does that cop get off hauling you downtown on the way to a business meeting with a vendor anyway?) You look at your options: You can both get married immediately, file the paperwork, and within about a year your new spouses will get legal residency. Until then, she's subject to deportation at any time. And although you love her, you're Catholic and it seems wrong to you to get married in a big rush without the proper big catholic wedding. And these fuckers in Arizona don't seem to want you or your kind here anyway. Or you can say, "fuck it," and take your families and your business to Nevada. It's not much different of a place to live, and some of your friends have already moved there. Maybe get married and do the paperwork on your own timeline. You tell your two latino employees (you think they are legal, but who the hell knows if the documents were real) they have jobs if they want to follow you. So they do too. You can't sell your house because you are underwater. So you default on the mortgage. The building you rented is now underwater too, because they can't find any new tenants. So it gets boarded up. Several buildings in the neighborhood have the same problem, and suddenly the people who had been happy, even the white citizens, panic and start moving too. It snowballs, and you get left with what I described. That's what I think will happen in Arizona.
I don't see anything in your post that is specific to being an illegal alien, as opposed to just having done something illegal.
Erase stereotypes by wearing a mask to look like a stereotypical white person? How brilliant is that?
And I'm sure legal residents who live in the neighborhoods boarded up will take great consolation in that. Just like I'm sure the average joe in Detroit rejoiced that the manufacturers of all those crappy cars finally got what was coming to them. Yay! We got rid of all those law-breakers. They broke the law, and they paid the price. We win! Hmmm. Now, what do we do with all these desolate neighborhoods? How come crime has actually gone up in these places? What happened to all the local property owners who used to watch out for their neighborhood? It's almost like there was some kind of massive vacuum, with no local tax dollars to pay for police services, and Mexican drug cartels completely took over. It always amazes me that people who argue tax law has a massive impact on business and economic growth think immigration law has no impact on it.
Sorry, I don't buy the reasoning of "We screwed up and let the problem get out of hand, therefore we won't take action on illegal activity because it might have some short-term negative impact". I didn't see any posts in this thread stating anything close to this assumption. Nice strawman.
