DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

I think the state should Jared because each state is located in different places and there are some that are near borders and some that aren't. So, the state definitely does deserve the right to set immigration laws.

I think it is just.

I do, however, think that:

(1) It is unfortunate that a state has to take it upon themselves to do something that the federal government should be doing but has failed to do.

(2) It is unfortunate that in this time in history a state has to create a law making something illegal a crime. How redundant is that?!?

I live in Arizona.

If any of you would have read SB1070 you would not be having this discussion. What that law does is authorize local law enforcement to enforce the Federal Immigration Laws already on the books during the normal course of their duties. It also makes it a felony for a law enforcement officers to use a persons ethnicity (race) as the sole purpose for checking that persons citizenship – If a cop breaks that law he will go to prison.

If you want to call this law unjust, then you are calling all federal immigration laws unjust. Now THAT is pure STUPIDITY!

FYI – If the federal government would be doing their job and enforce the federal immigration laws on the books, then we here in Arizona would not have to do it for them!

Every day on the local news all we hear about is another drop house, another rancher shot at by drug runners, another kidnapping by drug runners, another home invasion robbery, another rape . . . and these crimes are ALL committed by illegal aliens and our federal government wants to sue us so that we won't be able to stop all this crap?

We will not put up with this garbage, no matter what the feds think, say or do!

Let's take a step back and look at the same issue in the Netherlands.

[youtube ivFWjtynNp8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivFWjtynNp8 youtube]

Can we gain any insight into our own situation by reflecting on theirs?

The thing is the federal government has not been doing anything to help, which is why Arizona decided to step up and try to deal with it on their own so they are being impacted and the government has not given any better solutions to the problem.

What part of Arizona are you from?

andrewclunn; please pay VERY CLOSE attention to the following.

1. We are the United States of America.

2. We came here and formed our country to get away from the insanity that is Europe.

I say let Europe wallow in its own rot. Netherlands included. There is nothing that we can gain by modeling our country after the failed policies of what we came here to get away from.

FYI – I did not watch your video, because I do not care what their situation is.

Mohave County.

Then why bother to reply to my comment? It's not really a reply then is it?

Why bother to reply?

I thought that you lacked a little education in American History, that's why.

Since you chose to ignore everything but my statement about not watching your video, you just proved my point.

Don't take it personal, I was just trying to help.

"I thought that you lacked a little education in American History, that's why."

So because I thought it was ridiculous to debate someone who doesn't know my position specifically because they are unwilling to watch a 2 minute video, this indicates that I don't know enough American history? Or is it the fact that I indicated that there was perhaps anything to learn from a similar European situation that makes me automatically ignorant?

"Since you chose to ignore everything but my statement about not watching your video, you just proved my point."

Yes, clearly my dismissing your post as pointless (because you've stated you have no interest in viewing mine or knowing what my position is) indicates that I am not giving you the proper respect. How dare I read all of your post and then only respond to one point! The indecency of it all! I should have responded by claiming to know what your position was before hand and openly admitting to not reading your post before responding to it; anything less is just rude. =/

By posting that video you imply that we should learn from the Europeans how to be us. I again state that we left Europe because of the European stupidity, so why should we mimic them? We have absolutely nothing to learn from Europe.

I personally do not care if you agree or disagree with my position on the lack of our governments willingness to enforce our immigration laws.

We can learn from their mistakes- for instance, the mistake of automatically labeling people because they disagree with us. ^.^ I agree with Andrew- if you didn't watch the video, what was the point of commenting?

I see a lot of problems with the law. I see racial profiling becoming a problem, because, let's face it, a police officer is going to be more likely to see "probable suspicion" with a 25 year-old Mexican male who speeding than a white male of the same age. Then you're going to be getting a lot of 25 year-old Mexican males being harrassed even though they're here legally because, hey, they might be illegal. Not cool.

Furthermore, I tend to believe this will expand the ability of police officers to abuse their powers. We already have the "good faith rule" people, why give them more excuse to harrass innocent people? ^.^

Trumped local problem that isn't supported by empirical data on the ground (ie, actual violent crime rate, much less actual crime rate as caused by immigrant populations), resolves nothing, probably increases the underlying problems. Won't be resolved through federal action. Certainly not in a way desired by Arizonans. Will increase racial profiling, which is known and desired by the local population, even though it doesn't work and will potentially cause considerable economic distress in a state that doesn't need any more of it.

Good job all around really.

The funny part is that I suspect your video was actually in some way or another supportive of his position (in a way). Ie, that the merits of immigration policy should be debated, as much as possible, based on the position's cost or benefits itself and less as a consequence of who it is that is holding those positions, with the obvious factor that a good number of xenophobic or otherwise racist persons may hold personally abhorrent views which influence their position vis a vis immigration policies.

I consider the border policies being thrown out or passed into law as mostly corner solutions and thus ineffective relative to their costs. And I'm a little skeptical of any need or basis for such laws and policies such that it is difficult to find non-xenophobic basis for them (there is on the basis of having an open borders policy AND an open social welfare state, but we have neither for the most part. Excepting in the minds of the most hyperbolic opponents to either the welfare state or an open borders policy, and to me the best solution to that is to end the welfare state not to end open borders anyway). But I'd at least entertain the possibility that accusing my political opponent of holding abhorrent personal views is unlikely to sway their views and is most definitely unlikely to present a cogent argument against their position.

Godwin's law typically would conclude that whoever invokes it first loses.

How could it be racial profiling if the illegal immigrants are coming from Mexico and are of that ethnic background?

Racially profiling will be of American citizens of Hispanic descent. Something like 2/3s of Arizona's Hispanic population is perfectly legal in its residency. While there is a high illegal immigrant percentage, relative say, Ohio, it's not so high that the law will not be turned against legal citizens and residents at a considerable clip and cause mistrust and harassment by local law enforcement. All you have to do to see how this works is observe the differences between Maricopa County (under Sheriff Joe) and the rest of Arizona. The rest of Arizona experienced a considerable drop in crime. Even the City of Phoenix did (in Maricopa County).

The area that did not was the area under the jurisdiction of the now state wide law enforcing immigration laws, which experienced a considerable increase in crime. Some explanation may be found in the harassment and non-compliance with law enforcement by legal (Hispanic) residents who were the target of effectively siege warfare tactics employed by the County (random checks of immigration status for someone just walking out their front door for example), and in some cases, illegal residents who would otherwise comply (for example by coming forward as witnesses to criminal actions).

I hardly see how this is an effective method of dealing with illegal immigration as a result.

You gotta be a lawyer . . . Talk all day and say absolutely nothing. That was not a personal attack, just an observation.

How exactly was that a) talking all day, it's a god damned paragraph and b) nothing. Those are factual assertions about the political and criminal situation.

Try reading more than the three words that lead into my statements (ie, my name) and you might learn something.

That was a personal attack. I've had enough of your implacable and deliberate ignorance in attempting to get a rise out of people by responding with stupid statements like that.

I was born and (for the most part) raised in the US. I am part Cherokee, not Hispanic and during the winter I lose most of my tan. I still carry a US Passport with me when I travel just because it saves discussion. I think Arizona's attempt at enforcing the law is a good start.

The president swore an oath to defend the constitution and his job as the head of the executive branch is to enforce the laws of this country. As far as I can see, his attempts to undermine the immigration laws and grant amnesty to illegal aliens is flat out criminal behavior and he should be called on it, regardless of which irresponsible, unprintable degenerate party holds the office.

As a side issue, I think that our general laws toward foreign nationals should reflect the laws that their nation of origin has toward Americans. As an example, if Americans can not own real estate in Mexico, then Mexican nationals should be prohibited from buying real estate in America under any circumstances.

So instead of granting the same legal jurisprudence to everyone and allowing people to adapt and assimilate to it, as they will and do, you're suggesting a system of cultural protectionism that would mean that only people from free countries would have freedom by coming here, effectively blaming the random people who make it here for the policies of countries often dictated by very unfree governments (like say, Saudi Arabia or China or Venezuela or Cuba?)

This is also a major issue with trade laws and restrictions. Protectionism will get you "killed" in trade. For example, the US was supposed to implement a programme allowing Mexican truckers to carry goods from Mexico (often for American manufacturers) and since that's been foot-dragged and now finally killed by Democrats in 2009, Mexico is considering taking up retaliatory sanctions (and the WTO is rather annoyed with us over this also). What you are suggesting would not remove any of these undesirable sanctions on American business or commerce, it would increase them.

A better solution is to reduce sanctions and restrictions on the freedom of trade and the movement of labour rather than to create distinct legal environments for varieties of people, ala apartheid.

As other points to this very ill thought line of thinking, if people come from a country that has very few laws governing types of behavior, such as regulations on who may be a doctor or teacher for example, does that mean you would permit them to live in accordance with their laws instead of ours and become practicing doctors or teachers without following our (admittedly often foolish) licensing laws? What about prostitution or narcotics laws which differ often wildly, if they even exist at all in some countries? Would people be free to follow those according to their own legal or cultural practices? (These are all laws which would apply to Americans living or working or simply traveling in other countries).

Or, by contrast, what if they have very strict laws governing certain types of behaviors, for example adultery or heresy? Should they be allowed to apply those? And should our government at any level assist them in enforcement?