L.A. Times: "Thank you, Arizona"

The L.A. Times weighs in on Arizona’s controversial new immigration law:

Thank you, Arizona.

Despite our strong condemnation of a new law that will likely promote racial profiling of Latinos in your state, we must acknowledge that you have accomplished what many others — including senators, committed activists and a willing president — have failed to achieve. You put immigration back on the national agenda.

The Cato Institute’s Daniel Griswold makes a similar point:

A silver lining of the Arizona immigration law is that is has turned up the heat on Washington to re-examine federal policy. As I’ve made the rounds of talk radio shows today, one of the questions that keeps coming up is just what changes should be made in federal law to tackle illegal immigration. Glad you asked.

In brief, the single most effective change would be to expand opportunities for legal immigration, including for low-skilled workers who make up the large majority of the illegal population.

Read Reason's immigration coverage here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    THEY TOOK UR JERBS AND USED UR EMURGENCEE ROOMS

  • ||

    "Where are the white women at? Also, where's all the free stuff we heard about?"

  • ||

    When limited ER resources are being cost shifted to other paying patients, for me that issue is a legitimate sticking point. As a doctor, I would like to see everyone treated as needed; as a libertarian and taxpayer opposed to the massive welfare state and who does not believe in unicorns and magic fairy dust, somewhere there has to be a cutoff point. The health care entitlement is forever cemented in the American Entitlement Psyche(tm) and this cancer will only be cured when the patient is killed.

  • ||

    I never understood the indigent exception. Are you poor? OK, then let's work out a payment plan or see about hooking you up with a local charity that can help offset the costs.

    You consumed the service, now pay up.

  • ||

    EMTALA is a big part of that equation JW. Anyone in the country that presents themselves to an ER in the US gets treated, Federal Law and end of story. No politican, not even a physician holding office of any level, will suggest repealing this. I have a better chance banging Lindsey Lohan, winning the lottery, getting struck by lightning all at the same time than that happening. Personally, the two things, IMO that really started the move to single payer socialized medicine (besides the obvious Medicare Act) was EMTALA and HIPAA.

    It should also be noted, and RC Dean can back me up on this one, is that hospitals do have specialists for just that purpose. That department has anywhere from 25 to 35 percent of hospital staff that never sees the patient at all whatsever that deals with nothing but billing, be it CMS, third party payers, and social services. And guess what, those departments cost a shitload of money, as salaries and benefits have to be paid, another reason cost shifting ensues, and this is true of even private hospital networks. Also, social service consults are ordered to assist indigent patients to get at least some care compensated to the provider.

  • Dave||

    "I have a better chance banging Lindsey Lohan, winning the lottery, getting struck by lightning all at the same time than that happening."

    One of these things is not like the other.

  • ||

    Yes, winning the lottery might improve your quality of life.

  • ||

    I honestly would not wish to win the lottery, which is why I don't play and am prudent in my investments. I believe I have been given all that I can handle, and from the majority of lottery stories I have heard and read, lottery recipients' lives end in disaster and misery. Although there are a few people I would gladly pay to forget I ever existed and go away to never bother me again, including government.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Personally Groovus, I think those occasional lottery winners who end up with an epic failure is more a sampling bias problem.

    Most intelligent, well-positioned & financially literate folks don't play the lottery... Certainly not regularly.

    So those that do win, are going to tend to be folks who have no clue how to handle money anyway - and then they behave like the financial ignoramuses they always were, only this time they have millions of dollars to burn through.

    That doesn't usually make for a happy ending. But then someone like you would probably be just fine.

    Point being - it's definitely not just luck-of-the-draw if winning a boatload of money improves your life or contributes to your already shitty life. Money is, as always, a vehicle that still needs a competent driver.

  • Ted S.||

    Although there are a few people I would gladly pay to forget I ever existed and go away to never bother me again, including government.

    Many years ago, I was watching a stage hypnotist who told all the people up on stage that they had a chance to win a million dollars. When he asked them what they would do with the money, one of them answered, "Tell people to go to hell."

  • ||

    They took my parked 69 Impala and smashed into it, totaling it, while driving drunk with no insurance, and I got a restitution check for $200! Yeah, so, blow it out your ass.

  • ||

    So when a drunk uninsured white guy does the same thing, that's different?

  • ||

    Look, Epi, just amend your statement to include 69 Impalas.

  • kinnath||

    Yes, I can affirm from personal experiance that it is much less distressing when a 20-something, coke-head, white-girl rear-ends your wife and sends her to the hospital.

  • kinnath||

    That's why I carried unisured-driver coverage when I live in Az.

  • ||

    No but if she can afford some coke daddy could probably take care of the car and your wife's medical bills. Hope your wife is okay

  • ||

    A drunk uninsured white guy didn't do it. I know it was a drunk uninsured illegal, I saw the bastard with my own two eyes. So what's your point?

  • ||

    You clearly don't get the point. But I expected that.

  • cynical||

    You can see an abstract legal status with your eyes? Are you a cyborg wired into a government database or something?

  • ||

    AND, before the police even knew he was the one who wrecked my baby, they had already pulled him over for committing another traffic violation, the guy had no valid license(even the license he had from Mexico was expired) AND no tags!!! They asked him about the damage to his truck, and he said some had hit and ran from HIS car, and then the cops LET HIM GO!!! Luckily, my boyfriend's mom saw his truck at the LIQUOR store at 10 in the MORNING as she was driving past to come to our apartment. What a fucking asshole this guy was!

  • ||

    OK, let's deport all the fucking assholes, then. :::tumbleweeds:::

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Shit happens. Deal with it.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    You have to love the logic of that argument. That there are drunk uninsured white guys doing the same thing is not in question. So how does adding some drunk uninsured brown guys to the equation improve his odds of not getting his car stolen and totaled?

    Do you also believe whacking yourself over the head with a hammer will cure your headache?

  • Jordan Elliot||

    If it resulted in death it would.

  • ||

    If every Hispanic person in Arizona left the state for about a week, the economic impact would make even the stupidest state legislator realize that you really can't just send all the Mexicans home.

    -jcr

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If every Hispanic person in Arizona left the state for about a week, the economic impact would make even the stupidest state legislator realize that you really can't just send all the Mexicans home.


    How about just the illegal aliens?

    By the way, you should know how Mexico treats illegal aliens .

  • ||

    Dude - "undocumented" is the preferred nomenclature.

  • kinnath||

    "Unauthorized" per Arizona law.

  • ||

    And under Federal Immigration Laws the term used is "illegal alien." Phuck all the PC nonsense.

  • ||

    I'm sure their economy will be just fine considering the drop in crime they'll undoubtedly have. Store keepers not losing inventory to theft, drops in killings, and my personal favorite, no more drunken illegals driving around smashing into cars and having no insurance. Those are economic boosters that will make up for whatever loss they have in economic spending.

  • T||

    Michelle Malkin wrote a book some posters disagree with so everything else she says is a lie, Michael.

    Or something like that.

  • iowahawk||

    If nothing else, the Dadaist in me I enjoyed this CNBC headline:

    "Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant"

  • ||

    Darn laws - they've made criminals out of all those er criminals.

  • ||

    Actually, being an alien out of legal status does not necessarily or intrinsically make one a criminal under existing federal law. It's a civil violation.

  • Abdul||

    Oh, now who's getting pedantic? Me!

    18 USC § 1325. Improper entry by alien
    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
    Any alien who
    (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
    (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
    (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

  • ||

    Oh sure, if you're going to actually read and cite the statute...

  • ||

    Wrong, try again. (same to JR below). I said merely being out of status, not how one enters,

    That statute refers to ILLEGAL ENTRY, not merely being out of status (i.e "illegal alien"). The act of entry under false pretenses or eluding a normal border IS a crime.

    Merely being out of status (an "illegal alien") is not. It's a civil violation noly, at least to date under federal law.

    Example, person enters under a visa through inspection and intends to visit. Later decides afterwards to overstay and not leave. Not a crime. Is a civil violation and is deportable/removable.

    A person enters by evading the border. Later gets lawful refugee/asylum status. Legal status is 100% (not deportable, presence is proper) but still technically could be prosecuted under the statute Abdul cited for illegal entry, a crime. (Normally they don't prosecute if status is granted.)

    That crime, again, is improper ENTRY, not unauthorized presence (which is what is meant by "illegal alien").

    A person can enter legally and remain illegally (but it's not a crime) or enter illegally (a crime) but be later given authorized status (become a legal alien) despite being prosecutable for criminal entry.

    Read and cite the statute, yes, but accurately.

  • ||

    I heard at the US border there is a "Do Not Trespass" sign next to a "Help Wanted" sign.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Writing for Mind of Mencia wasn't the cushy job you originally thought, was it?

  • ||

    Obama's characterization of the bill as "irresponsible" is a little odd given the federal government's incoherent non-policy on illegal immigration. Having read the bill in its entirety, I'm sure he can tell us precisely what is irresponsible about it - or not.

    My issue with the bill is the lack of acknowledgment by its supporters that the police can (and do, all the time) come up with a pretext for any citizen stop or search, making the question of citizenship the primary cause for the encounter with police and not something they do in the course of investigating a specific observed crime.

  • T||

    I fail to see how this is different form things now. Generally speaking, a cop can come up with some bullshit justification for stopping you at any given moment and you have no practical recourse. This law changes things how, exactly?

  • ||

    The law does nothing to address the legitimacy of police stops. One defense of the bill is that the citizenship check is only performed after some other legitimate police stop. The Sean Hannitys/Lone Wackos of the country are saying "We aren't going to discriminate by checking Mexican-looking people at random - this law only allows for this check to be done on a person already under investigation for some other crime". But, since we know some number of police can and do make up the reason for a traffic stop or search on any given day, the "we can't possibly be discriminating against Latinos" argument falls flat. The key element to the fairness of the law is questionable given any and all stops can effectively be made for any or no reason. So the police will be harassing legal Latino citizens that get pulled over "for some other reason", wink wink.

  • ||

    KY's seatbelt law was pitched in exactly the same manner. Surprise, surprise... a few years later the asshole legislature slipped through a bill saying that a seatbelt check was enough to pull someone over.

  • ||

    Same with OK.

  • ||

    Illinois did the same thing. But, in general, there is no comparison between Illinois and Kentucky. Kentucky is a way cooler. I'm biased though. Every time I'm in Kentucky (very rural Lynnville area) I'm hunting, camping/hiking, or blasting off guns on the family acreage. What's not to like.

  • pmains||

    I see what you're saying, but you can't observe someone being here illegally in the same way you can observe them not having their seatbelt on. To make a stop, they have to have reasonable suspicion, and to make an arrest they need probable cause. Race cannot be considered probable cause under our Constitution. So, the seatbelt analogy doesn't fit.

  • ||

    Yes, they can send all of the ILLEGAL people home. It is a price that AZ is willing to pay according to their law. It does not give them the right to stop anyone due to the color of their skin, it only gives them the right for them to make a person prove they are here legally if they are already stopped. It only reinforces the current laws that the Federal Government is neglecting. Pheonix is the USA's #1 kidnapping capitol. In the world, Phoenix ranks NUMBER 2, IN THE WORLD...that is out of control and they need help! The key word here is illegal....if you are here ILLEGALLY, then that says it all...you are breaking the law, please go home and enter properly and we will welcome you with open arms!

  • ||

    All 5,000 of you!

  • ||

    In the world, Phoenix ranks NUMBER 2, IN THE WORLD...

    Cite?

  • zoltan||

  • CaptainSmartass||

    My reading of the law says police can stop anyone, at anytime, and demand proof of legality to be in the country. So, do you ordinarily carry your birth certificate with you? I know I don't. Which means they could just say I'm an illegal alien from Canada and ship me up to Montreal.

    The law is an idiotic solution to an idiotic problem. There are obviously jobs waiting for these people, why don't we start giving them visas so they do those jobs and pay taxes instead of being forced to break the law?

  • Barack HUSSEIN Obama||

    So, do you ordinarily carry your birth certificate with you? I know I don't.

    Word

  • ||

    As an ADULT, you should always have your drivers license on you anyway. What kind of moron regularly doesn't carry ID? And it isn't like they're going to immediately put your lazy butt on a bus -- you'll have a chance to prove you're a citizen.

  • SIV||

    Not carrying an ID when I was a young adult means I don't get hassled going into Canada now.

  • ||

    Here's one for Washington, where the State Supreme Court ruled that the police can't make you produce an ID. Now this is what so-called libertarians should be supporting, not the AZ law.http://www.seattlepi.com/local/418746_video.html

  • ||

    Haven't heard about this little recession thing we have going, have you?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Must be those damn worthless Americans. It's always the damn worthless Americans! Because we all know the illegals are hardworkingpeoplejusttryingtomakeabetterlifeforthemselvesdoingthejobsAmericanswon'tdo. Right?

  • MWG||

    "...please go home and enter properly and we will welcome you with open arms!"

    Riiight....

  • Colonel_Angus||

    The only kind of immigrant regulation I am really concerned about is communicable diseases. Really, I'm not even worried about former criminals. Having a bit of a sheet myself, I hope another country would be kind enough to welcome me.

  • creech||

    I just found this warning in a packet for a conference I'm attending in Canada:
    "If you have committed or been convicted of committing a criminal offence, you may not be allowed to enter Canada. Criminal offences include both minor and serious offences, such as theft, assault, manslaughter, dangerous driving and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. For a complete list of criminal offences in Canada, consult the Canadian Criminal Code."

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I just found this warning in a packet for a conference I'm attending in Canada:
    "If you have committed or been convicted of committing a criminal offence, you may not be allowed to enter Canada. Criminal offences include both minor and serious offences, such as theft, assault, manslaughter, dangerous driving and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. For a complete list of criminal offences in Canada, consult the Canadian Criminal Code."


    In the meantime, politicians in America are bending over backwards to accommodate lawbreakers.

  • ||

    You are a moron of the highest order.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You are a moron of the highest order.


    Do you not find it the least bit odd that the same people who want us to emulate Canada's health care policies are completely silent about emulating Canada's immigration policies?

  • ||

    Actually, Canadian immigration law is incredibly lax and enforcement is a joke.

    Which is why Microsoft and other software companies had development centres in Canada. They could get trained developers from India and other countries into Canada much easier than they could get them into the US.

  • ||

    MS also does this because it's easier to get them L-1 visas (I think they have to be in Canada for a year to qualify?) and bring 'em down to Redmond than it is to get H-1Bs.

  • SIV||

    Why doesn't MS just hire a bunch of "illegals" to do it? If the government doesn't really care about immigration law enforcement in agriculture and construction surely they don't care about software developers.

  • ||

    "If you have committed or been convicted of committing a criminal offence"

    I'm going to be so screwed when they perfect the mind probe.

  • ||

    They'd have to develop strong pr0n filters, first.

    ;P

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Never underestimate the stupidity of some people. There are criminals out there who are dumb enough who, after reading the first part of the question, would answer "yes" even if they weren't convicted.

  • ||

    creech, this is just the Canadians fleecing Americans. This is what they do: they pull you aside at the border and ask if you've ever been arrested (not convicted!) for anything, ever. If you tell them the truth, even about something minor like buying alcohol underage, they will ask you to sit, then act like they're looking you up for a few minutes. Then they call you back and say that they're not supposed to let you in, but they can give you a one-time "waiver" for this time...for $200. You obviously do it because $200 is small enough to pay to not have to turn around.

    It's a scam. They did it to me because I decided to give them one of my several arrests to see if they actually could find out about them. Guess what? They can't, because otherwise they would have called me out for omitting all the ones I left out.

    When they ask you if you've been arrested, just say no, and you should be fine. Unless it was for a major crime, and then I'm not sure.

  • ||

    "[O]ne of my several arrests. . . ."

    Do tell.

  • ||

    This was all his fault. He was arrested but a very sticky jury failed to convict.

  • ||

    Canada is remarkably pissy about DUI's.

  • ||

    They had no idea what I had done, trust me. First of all, there's no way they have access to state arrest records, and secondly, it was so obviously a scam that it was insulting. It was a shakedown, nothing more.

  • ||

    ""First of all, there's no way they have access to state arrest records,""

    Are you sure about that?

  • ||

    Search U.S. Arrest records in a browser. Lots of companies sell them. Why wouldn't Canada subscribe to one?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I guess I must be a member of one of Canada's Inadmissible Classes (not because of DUI), and proud of it. The smart thing to do when asked about convictions, is say no, because they aren't going to check. Non convictions and convictions as a minor probably won't show up. And I'd like to know how they plan to find me if I've already been in Canada for some time.

  • mr simple||

    That page is clearly an attempt to gin up some business. Everything in an a specialists purview is a really serious matter to them.

  • ||

    True. However, his method of advertisement in no way invalidates the veracity and cogency of the information.

    Specialty in a given area falls under "comparative advangtage" and "division of labor" principles, which can make them quite lucrative.

  • SIV||

    A co-worker of mine was informed, by Canadian border personnel, of a marijuana arrest he totally forgot about.The arrest was in the early 80s, citation-no arrest, dismissed w/o him appearing in court, no fine no conviction.He was trying to go to Niagra Falls for a few hours. They have access to some kind of huge database to come up with that. They knew the date time address but no info on the disposition of the case.

  • SIV||

    My point: Canadian border flunkies have access to a database that includes 25+ yo misdemeanor arrests, w/o any adjudication of guilt.

  • ||

    An American friend of mine was almost denied at the Canadian border because he copped to stealing some Nikes when he was 18 years old. He was something like 27 at the time. The Canadian border guards are thugs and I'm as embarrassed by their bullshit as I am by the US border bullshit. Two sides of the same shit coin.

    "That's a good shit analogy."

  • ||

    please go home and enter properly and we will welcome you with open arms!

    B-

  • Colonel_Angus||

    It seems likely that the cops will only bother to check the citizenship of hispanic-looking people. I wonder how many illegal Canadians are going to just slip through the system. If you ask me (and I don't care if you ask or not, because I'm going to tell you anyway) Canadians are a bigger threat to American culture than Mexicans or other latins.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It seems likely that the cops will only bother to check the citizenship of hispanic-looking people.


    That is a small price to pay.

  • ||

    Yes - that flood of Canadians fleeing their (relatively) thriving economy to grab up all those American jerbs is quite an issue.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Its not that, I totally stand behind better economic productivity. I am just worried about Canadian collectivism rubbing off here.

  • ||

    Too late. About 50 years too late.

  • ||

    Fifty years ago, if anything, Canada was less collectivist than the US.

    In 1960, the New Deal was still the official political religion of the US, Canada had rejected that kind of thing and had weathered the depression better for it.

    Frankly, it's libertarian Canadians who have a beef with the USA. After the mid-sixties you couldn't swing a cat in any Canadian university without hitting a, Americam expatriate academic who was far mare leftwing than any of his Cauck counterparts.

    And take note of where the Canadian politicians, Pearson, Trudeau and Douglas, who did move Canada to the left went to postgraduate school.

  • ||

    How are illegal Canadians going to slip through the system? Unless they're actually criminals, they will need an SSN to work. And as soon as they leave, they'll get denied when they try to re-enter the US. I knew some Canadians who kinda sorta tried to do this, and their car got red-flagged at the border.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    The law in discussion isn't about checking citizenship at the border, it is about cops checking citizenship of people they stop.

  • ¢||

    I can't trick my brain into understanding temporary worker visas as an even remotely libertarian thing. State-corporate partnerships to generate and fill labor quotas with imported indentures? WTF, yo?

    Let people go where they want to go, and stay if they want to, or don't. They're both positions libertarians can justify with their cred intact. This "reform" shit is nine drinks.

  • ||

    But they're brown and ethic and speak Spanish and are often papists, cent sign! They eat spicy foods and often live in clusters, and park cars on their lawn! We don't know why they're a threat, but for some reason, they are! We have to keep them out, but by saying it's because they're illegal, even though we absolutely oppose any way of making more of them legal! Do you understand now?

    It's not racist, really! It's just nativist! Wait, that sounds bad! No, it's just about following the law! Yes, that sounds much better!

  • ||

    As master of satire at work.

  • &||

    Your hysterical over-reaction to the AZ bill is comical.

  • ||

    Thanks for the libdouche manifesto cliff's notes.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Why did this thing have to happen just when there was an outside chance we might get divided government again in November? The Republicans had a clear shot on Obamacare, stimulus and unions. Now they're holding the only tar baby stickier than abortion. No wonder the LAT is thanking them.

  • ||

    I bet you thought it was stupid for Don Quixote to attack those windmills, too.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Now they're holding the only tar baby stickier than abortion. No wonder the LAT is thanking them.


    How is this a tar baby?

    Do most Americans support illegal immigration?

  • ||

    Because Latinos are a growing voting bloc and the Republicans just passed a law that basically states if you are of Latino origin you must carry around your "papers" at all times.

    Not good.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Because Latinos are a growing voting bloc and the Republicans just passed a law that basically states if you are of Latino origin you must carry around your "papers" at all times.


    And how big is the anti-illegal-immigration bloc?

  • ||

    You just don't get it, do you? It has nothing to do with supporting law breakers. I don't think it's fair to knowingly let illegal immigrants live and work here and at the same time turn away others from Asia and Europe who are attempting to get in legally. But, the point is that under this law legal Latino citizens effectively need to have "their papers" with them AT ALL TIMES, while Americans of European, African, and Asian heritage get a pass. If I was planninga driving trip through Arizona, even with this law in place, it would never occur to me to bring real proof of citizenship. Any minor children with me certainly wouldn't have any.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But, the point is that under this law legal Latino citizens effectively need to have "their papers" with them AT ALL TIMES, while Americans of European, African, and Asian heritage get a pass.


    That is a minor inconvenience to endure for a worthy goal.

    The rightness of the goal is what is important.

  • Charles||

    That is a minor inconvenience to endure for a worthy goal.

    The rightness of the goal is what is important.

    You know this makes you by definition not a libertarian, right? If so, why are you here?

  • ||

    ""The rightness of the goal is what is important.""

    Juanita, is that you?

  • ||

    ""That is a minor inconvenience to endure for a worthy goal.""

    Yeah, it's Juanita

  • EMp||

    Shouldn't affect the mid-terms much unless amnesty is granted real soon and the illegals are grandfathered in the right to vote....but wait, could that be what the leftists(liberals, libertarian left, marxists) and corporatists want? Hmmmm.....

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    With polling like this, they can only pray for more such tar babies.

  • ||

    "Why did this thing have to happen just when there was an outside chance we might get divided government again in November?"

    I don't think this is a big enough deal to stop the Republican express.

    But I do think it's important to remember that divided government is when the Republicans and the Democrats divide power between themselves...

    Whatever shape the Republicans take in Congress, anything they have in common with my take will almost be coincidental. Even the way the Tea Party's shaping up...

    If the Democrats and the Republicans agree on only one thing, it'll be "Screw the libertarians!"...

    It'll always be two steps forward and one step back.

  • ||

    Let me be clear - the situation is under control. We're going to fly predator drones over the border. Problem solved.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Michelle Malkin explains how Mexico treats illegal aliens .

  • zoltan||

    Durrrrr, let's start doing what other countries do, yuh-huk!

  • ||

    zoltan, don't you know that the Mexicans are right when they do something fascist that we like, but wrong as soon as they step over the border? It's all very simple.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Durrrrr, let's start doing what other countries do, yuh-huk!


    That is what people say on the issues of health care and capital punishment, that we must do what other countries do.

    They never mention that other countries- even Western liberal democracies- have stricter immigration laws and enforcement.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    Explaining yourself didn't make your argument any less stupid.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    More evidence that Malkin is an idiot. Mexico has a government monopoly on gasoline, should we follow their lead there, too?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    More evidence that Malkin is an idiot. Mexico has a government monopoly on gasoline, should we follow their lead there, too?


    She was pointing out Mexican hypocrisy in criticizing America's immigration policy.

  • ed||

    An interesting side issue here is the ramping-up of boycott talk, not by individuals but by institutions with racial agendas, similar to what happened years ago when Arizona dragged its feet on recognizing an official Martin Luther King holiday. Then it was black outrage fueled by professional race-baiters and shakedown artists such as Sharpton and Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus; now it's the Latinos' turn for righteous indignation.

  • EMp||

    You mean,'self'-righteous indignation, correct?

  • Ragin Cajun||

    I don't think these boycotters are the smartest group of people...

  • ed||

    I hear they are also planning a boycott of the Blu-ray release of Raising Arizona.

  • ||

    Let people go where they want to go, and stay if they want to, or don't.

    On the whole, I'd rather stop people with communicable diseases and criminal careers at the border, thanks.

    I'm cool with letting everyone else in, as long as they are self-supporting. I think that's reasonable.

    In practice, that means visas (trust, but verify). So be it. Anyone with a visa is ineligible for transfer programs (food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) but as a self-supporting resident, they can use the infrastructure (schools, etc.).

    I think a major incentive for illegal immigration could be removed if you got rid of "anchor babies". Just being born on this side of the Rio Grande shouldn't be enough. One parent a citizen? Fine. If your parents were legal immigrants when you were born, you become a citizen when either of them does.

  • ||

    RC Dean - precisely.

  • T||

    How about telling mom and dad "Okay, the kid can stay, but you have to leave. Hand junior over to CPS and get gone." Most parents will take junior with back to Mexico. When Junior turns 18, entry is permitted. Alone.

  • ||

    That's what happens now.

  • Abdul||

    Won't eliminating birthright citizenship require a constitutional amendment? I don't know that your idea has that much popular support.

  • ||

    As I noted just above, eliminating birthright citizenship will not change anything. Citizen children do absolutely nothing to "anchor" illegal aliens who are detained by ICE. Those caught are regularly deported regardless of the status of any children.

    The only difference is that the children can and often do stay behind with legal family or other guardians or if they do go back with their parents they can travel back and forth at will when they are old enough. And when they turn 21 they can sponsor their parents under family unification rules (which still takes anywhere from ten months to three years to process.

  • ||

    You need not deny citizenship to anchor babies. You need only deny them the transfer programs denied to their parents.

  • ||

    Thanks, Arizona Republicans, for delivering the next few national elections to us!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Thanks, Arizona Republicans, for delivering the next few national elections to us!


    How so?

    Do a vast majority of Americans support illegal immigration?

  • ed||

    No. But Democrats and MSNBC want you to think that white Republican America is inherently racist.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    No. But Democrats and MSNBC want you to think that white Republican America is inherently racist.


    Of course, they fail to explain why racism is wrong, as racism is standard practice in such diverse countries like Japan, Malaysia, and France.

    And yes, I know they want us to follow other countries' examples on health care and capital punishment. Why not racism?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    /facepalm

  • ||

    As long as Obama has a mouth, that's not likely to happen.

  • Xeones||

    That is a small price to pay.

    Are you trying to be LoneWacko sans the whimsy, or did it just work out that way?

  • ||

    This should clear things up for you, X.

  • ||

    How dare you accuse them of being what they are concerned about people moving here just like their ancestors did!

  • ||

    http://whitewatch.wordpress.com/

    We'll be keeping a close eye on these crazy Third Position crackers.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Are you trying to be LoneWacko sans the whimsy, or did it just work out that way?


    We have to pick and choose.

    On another thread, it was pointed out that having hordes of Roman Catholic immigrants becoming naturalized citizens made the battle for legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" that much harder . In fact, the foundation of California Proposition 8's victory was laid in 1986, when President Reagan granted amnesty to illegal aliens, who were predominantly Roman Catholic. More illegal aliens arrived, having their anchor babies, who got to vote in 2008 for Proposition 8.

    Do you really think that amnesty to illegal aliens would further your cause. That illegal aliens who gain amnesty and become naturalized and their anchor babies will vote for smaller government or same-sex "marriage". Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is an example of how amnesty to illegal aliens and failure to enforce immigration law affects politics.

  • ||

    Do most Americans support illegal immigration?

    Most Americans have an inherent sense of fairness.

  • ||

    So you are saying that most do not support illegal immigration, then? Otherwise, please explain how it's fair for those who break the law to be better treated (no costs or waiting) than those who do.

    Is it racist to ask?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Most Americans have an inherent sense of fairness.


    Sadly, the past two hundred plus years have proven the opposite.

  • ||

    Arizona to LA Times: you're welcome - get ready for the wave...

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/.....2TZkCU0SSg

  • Jerry||

    If goods do not cross borders, armies illegal immigrants will.

  • ||

    You know, what's the real solution to all of our problems? A post-scarcity economy, that's what. Therefore, we should be focusing our energies on maximizing technological and scientific advance and on cultivating the best environment for making the benefits of such advances available to the largest number of people.

    What should we be doing right now to make that happen?

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Dyson Sphere
    Replicator type device

  • ||

    Fusion. Nanotech. Bioengineering. Safe, four-hour erections. True AI. Et cetera.

  • ||

    Frankly, I'd rather have a Tnuctpun stasis field and sleep the next 100 years or so off inside.

    Turn it off, take a peek outside and go back in for another 500 if nothing's improved.

  • ||

    You ain't gonna find no Tnuctpun stasis fields on Earth or puttering about in LEO, buddy.

  • ||

    No, but I did find this really wicked cool mind control helmet. The bothersome thing is that all I've been able to do with it is give some guy in Idaho a wide stance in the john.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    A Dyson Sphere (actually I'm thinking more Swarm) is the step past fusion and Nanotech is inline with the Replicator.

    Another thing that should be focused on is human space exploration. 41 years damnit. Why in the hell do we not have some type of permanent structure on the Moon right now?

  • ||

    I think we've got some hurdles to jump before we even start talking solar system reconstruction.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    It's a jump definitely but in all honesty, I'd rather we "go big or go home" here.

    I'm fairly down on mankind but I have to admit, when you get some of the best minds together and they have funding behind them, our species can pull off some really awesome feats. We're surrounded by things in our everday lives that are almost magical in what they can do and we take them for granted. I think aiming big would help to re-inspire the common folk.

    Then again, I just want to use Nanotech and Bioengineering to basically become Braniac and explore the universe.

  • ||

    How about we start small. Say, turn Jupiter into a star, then surround it with a Dyson swarm or ringworld.

  • ||

    Isn't that already supposed to happen this year? The Jupiter-star thingy, not the Dyson swarm.

    I will give you this tip; for free: it's a very good time to buy real estate on Europa. An opportunity like this only comes along once in a lifetime!

  • ||

    Can't have 2010 without 2001 first.

  • T||

    You just think that shuttle exploded on reentry in '03. The astronauts became giant space fetuses aided by the monoliths. So we're 2 years behind schedule, making it 2012. That's why the Mayan calendar ends then, because the aliens who built the pyramids were supposed to come back, not because the world was going to end. Geez. Don't you know anything?

  • ||

    Can't they just fake finding something buried on the moon like they faked the moon landings? It shouldn't be too hard to back date the photos.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Why must you mock my dream of a Dyson Sphere?

  • ||

    In a world where states and cities are making deep cuts to public services, where public schools are cutting their staffs, going to four days a week, etc...

    You have to expect something like Arizona. Anytime public services start getting rationed like that, you have to expect to see something like Arizona.

    In tough economic times, as sacrifices become harder to make, people get pickier about who they're willing to make sacrifices for. That's just human nature.

    Don't blame Arizona for giving the people what they want--blame those who continue to increase the level of mandatory sacrifice the people of Arizona and elsewhere are required to make.

    I've railed against the anti-immigration people here at Hit & Run for years, but even I recognize that where the anti-immigration people get traction is when you start talking about the sacrifices people make for public services...

    We've recently seen a new huge burden placed on the public nationally--we're all supposed to make sacrifices for a whopping 32 million new people on ObamaCare.

    Don't expect there not to be any consequences. That would be irrational. The reaction may not be proportionate or one-to-one either; people may not connect their feelings about immigration to any one program...

    But in tough times, as sacrifices become harder to make, people generally get pickier about who they're willing to make sacrifices for.

  • ||

    "IN A WORLD. . . ."

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Thought the same exact thing.

  • .||

    I'm a little ashamed to say that when that guy died (not that he wasn't a splendid fellow) I did a little jig inside. Same thing with Billy Mays. More so, actually.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Shame on you.

  • .||

    I know. IN A WORLD of loathsome creatures, I am the worst for hating Billy Mays.

  • ||

    That was actually kinda what I had in mind, and just for the record, I'm starting a whole bunch more of my posts that way from now on...

    In a world where LoneWacko makes sense to so many...

    It all writes itself after that.

  • ||

    Name check!

  • ||

    Let's hire the Israelis to build a border fence, because nothing the Israelis do can be called racist.

  • L. A. Raza||

    Question 8 on 2010 Census Form: "Is [this person] of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?"

    WTF?!

  • iowahawk||

    It's the absurdity, stupid.

    Want relaxed immigration restrictions? Fine. (So do I.) Then change the fucking federal immigration law.

    As is, we live in a bizarro world where the feds pretend to have an immigration law and pretend to enforce it. I suppose you can say they do enforce it, but only for people stupid enough to submit themselves to the tender mercies of the official immigration bureaucracy (e.g., Indian or Chinese programmers on F1 visas). By contrast, if you choose to ignore that apparatus and just jump the fence, they will happily look the other way.

    It's really a form of apartheid: one strict set of rules for immigrants arriving at LAX, another if you hide in cardboard boxes in the back of a box truck.

  • SIV||

    If one of those H-1B types actually jumps the fence and gets hired for an H-1B job the employer will likely be caught, heavily fined and the "illegal" deported and not allowed back on any kind of visa.The Feds are very strict with limiting immigration of any worker who might compete with a Reason commenter. This seems totally backwards to me.If there is going to be any immigration restriction at all shouldn't it be the lowest class?

  • Death Panelist||

    Let's get a shout out for a state thumbing its nose at the feds.


    Anyone?

  • .||

    Huzzah!

  • ||

    Arizona could have thumbed its nose at the feds by issuing illegal Arizona residents bio-verifiable documents and operating its own border crossing with a state police escort through the territory patrolled by ICE.

    But that's not what they did.

  • Arizona||

    D'Oh! Why didn't we think of that?

  • ||

    If this keeps idiot California liberals from moving here as they try to flee the destruction they've rendered on their own state, well, I say goody. This and the no permit concealed weapons law kicking in should horrify right-thinking San Franciscans for close to a millenia, I think.

  • ||

    Ironically (maybe not, was it mentioned elsewhere), the City of San Francisco adopted an ordinance, I believe, yesterday, specifically prohibiting anyone who works for the city from going to the State of Arizona for official business.

    Isn't that absurd?

  • ||

    When did we become completely insane? We used to be fairly pragmatic, if nothing else.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Really?

    You have to be joking.

  • ||

    Here's are two links from the San Francisco Chronicle, one from when the ban was being considered and one after...

    (04-26) 18:35 PDT San Francisco -- San Francisco's supervisors are calling for a sweeping boycott of Arizona in the wake of that state's harsh new rules aimed at illegal immigrants.

    A resolution that will go before the board Tuesday will call for San Francisco to end any and all contracts with Arizona-based companies and to stop doing business with the state.

    "We want to send a message," Supervisor David Campos told a rally on the steps of City Hall this morning.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....z0mPhxjoyW

    -------------------------------------

    City workers banned from official travel to Arizona

    San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.

    The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said. It's unclear how many planned trips by city workers will be curtailed.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....z0mPioALbI

  • Jordan Elliot||

    I'm not sure how to react to this.

  • ||

    "I'm not sure how to react to this."

    I'm not either.

    It was a lot easier to hate on Arizona for what they were doing before the City of San Francisco jumped on the bandwagon.

    I will say that this can only be good for the anti-immigration people in Arizona.

    A lot of people in Arizona are thinking right now, "Well if the City of San Francisco is dead set against it the it can't be all bad!"

  • ||

    Oh, and I should have added...

    And maybe Matt Welch will pick up on this with the baseball angle...

    There's a movement afoot to turn their backs on the Arizona Diamondbacks when they come to play the Giants...

    I don't know how much will come of it, but people are being encouraged to stand up, turn around and show their backs to the Arizona Diamondbacks during the first inning when they come to play the Giants.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Then I'll be rooting for the Diamondbacks to handily sweep the series.

    Someone mentioned it in this thread and I have to admit that this whole things sets up an interesting show for States rights. I'm not sure where to fall on this either.

    On one hand, I like that Arizona stepped up and did something of this level. (Not what they actually did with the law mind you.) Just that they did something ballsy.

    On the other hand, it's my understanding that basically the cops in AZ can now stop anyone they suspect as being here illegally. EVERYONE in AZ is game because we don't get illegal immigrants from only Mexico.

    Then again, perhaps I can just stop caring and watch the chaos further ensue.

  • .||

    It was a lot easier to hate on Arizona for what they were doing before the City of San Francisco jumped on the bandwagon.

    Wait till Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters get revved up.

  • ||

    It doesn't go far enough. I want a ban on official city travel to all 49 other states. It's probably all just b.s. junkets and conferences anyway

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    If I lived in Arizona, I'd be reacting with unmitigated glee.

  • ||

    Ironically (maybe not, was it mentioned elsewhere), the City of San Francisco adopted an ordinance, I believe, yesterday, specifically prohibiting anyone who works for the city from going to the State of Arizona for official business.

    Isn't that absurd?

    Applying that logic, since the AZ immigration law is a state version of Federal Immigration Law, does San Fran prohibit travel state officials from engaging in travel regarding Federal business, therefore the US?

  • guy in the back row||

    Wouldn't this be a case of interstate commerce, which is reserved to the federal government by the constitution?

    Those wacky state rights supporting San Franciscans!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Ironically (maybe not, was it mentioned elsewhere), the City of San Francisco adopted an ordinance, I believe, yesterday, specifically prohibiting anyone who works for the city from going to the State of Arizona for official business.


    They have the authority.

    They are also anti-American traitors like Julius Rosenberg and Benedict Arnold.

  • ||

    They never mention that other countries- even Western liberal democracies- have stricter immigration laws and enforcement.

    Well, I have. Usually in response to someone like you going on about how the cheese eating surrender monkeys are overrrun with teh illegal muslims because of their lax immigration policies.

  • ||

    In fact, doesn't strict immigration control seem to go hand in hand with European style social democracies?

    The more people have to pay for each other, the less tolerant they become.

  • ||

    Pretty much. What's funny though is that a lot of the whinging you hear is about migrants from othe EU countries coming to take advantage of higher wages and more generous welfare benefits.

    And yet with all the enforcement* tools they have at hand Hardly any EU country has been able to put a dent in the number of illegal immigrants from Africa, the Middle East and non-EU Eastern Europe.

    It strikes me as the kind of failure that might make people want to rethink their whole approach to the "problem".

    *For example, in France all residents are required to register with the state and have a Carte d'identité on their person at all times. Failure to produce the Carte d'identité on demand from any policeman is crime that will get you arrested. In theory this last power is exercised with scrupulous fairness but in reality French cops are only marginally less dickish to white people that American ones and significantally moreso to those with darker hued skin.

    In Italy, in addition to mandatory ID cards residents must register with the local police within six days of any change of residence and the police can enter homes on demand to verify if anyone other than the registered occupants are living there.

    Believe me, the fact that France and Italy are overrun with illegal immigrants has nothing to do with any scruples their police might have about violating anyone's civil rights.

    I really have to ask the border security types, how much more draconian do you want the enforcement regime here to become?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    In theory this last power is exercised with scrupulous fairness but in reality French cops are only marginally less dickish to white people that American ones and significantally moreso to those with darker hued skin.


    Which is understandable, as it is easier to root out illegal Somalis than illegal Slovaks.

  • ||

    Yeah, fine, except for the fact that France has a lot of Arab and black residents from its former African colonies colonies who have full citizenship rights granted due to France's nominal policy of liberté, égalité, fraternité for all who come under its jurisdiction.

    You guessed it, they get treated like shit too.

    Oh, and those Africans tend to speak perfect french, something that the illegal Slovaks don't do.

  • ziggy||

    As a latino, i dont see what the big deal is with the law. I always thought people who were sent to jail should have their immigration status checked (when it is questionable). If anything this law shows the ineptitude at the federal level to deal with the problem.
    And something has to be done...

    Also its funny the mexican government gets angry at this, they should be happy some of their prodigal sons will be returning, that and the fact that they treat illegal immigrants 100 times worse...

  • Richard Hoste||

    It good to see that at least a few of you have finally come to see the light. Michael Ejercito, EMp, and Tk are all great commenters. Keep it up, guys.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It good to see that at least a few of you have finally come to see the light. Michael Ejercito, EMp, and Tk are all great commenters. Keep it up, guys.


    Thank you.

    Favoring illegal aliens over American citizens is truly jumping the shark.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Wow, sure, getting a compliment from a neo-nazi and holocaust denier like Hoste would really make my day.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Wow, sure, getting a compliment from a neo-nazi and holocaust denier like Hoste would really make my day.


    When did he deny the Holocaust?

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Not familiar with his work then?

    Go to his website. But then, you may like what you find.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Not familiar with his work then?

    Go to his website. But then, you may like what you find.


    If Richard Hoste is the webmaster of HBD Books , I see no Holocaust denial material on the front page.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Dang, that's right, he's the Klansman. It's someone else that's the holocaust denier.

    So hard to keep the bigots straight. Next time I'll probably get the target of your prejudice wrong. My apologies in advance.

  • ||

    Do most Americans support illegal immigration?

    Maybe not, but they also don't want to be inconvenienced by enforcement of it.

    I've been stuck in traffic jams at border patrol checkpoints on I-5 in CA and US1 in FL and it's not the illegals who are bitching about the two hour delay.

  • T||

    Maybe not, but they also don't want to be inconvenienced by enforcement of it.

    Well, this one of many paradoxes of the American public. We're all in favor of the government doing things as long as it doesn't inconvenience us, personally.

    Except me. I'm in favor of the government inconveniencing itself, but I admit I'm shaky on the practical details of how that works.

  • Rich||

    I'm cool with letting everyone else in, as long as they are self-supporting.

    So, get a job here first, then immigrate? Seriously, I'm trying to understand how such a policy (~NZ) can be implemented in the US.

  • ||

    Points systems like the one NZ uses (Oz and Canada both use something similar IIANM) tend to favor the highly educated and skilled. This group already enjoys an advantage in our system.

    Furthermore they really on armies of bureacrats reading tealeaves to determine which occupations and degrees deserve the highest point scores.

  • ||

    Also, controlling who comes and goes it pretty easy when your country consist of two small islands and your only neighbor of any consequence is over a thousand miles away across the sea.

    Of course that doesn't stop Ockers complaining about Kiwis coming over and "tykin' ar jobs".

  • ||

    Let's start with the obvious: individuals should be able to exercise their powers of locomotion to go where they please provided that in so doing they do not prevent others from enjoying their rights.

    As friends of liberty, the right of the individual to move as she sees fit is paramount to any collective rights of say a nation state or one of its political subdivisions. The right to travel is a god-given, inalienable and natural right not subject to being balanced against some maoist "public interest" by some party apparatchik in robes.

    However, the right of travel does not encompass welfare rights. Thus, while any individual has the right to cross the Rio Grande as she sees fit, she does not have the right to get goodies the provision of which is made possible by taking from those who produce wealth at gunpoint and/or with the threat of incarceration.

    The foregoing assertion has been described as racist and anti-latino. Such assertions, of course, are intellectual claptrap, frivolous and advanced in bad faith. Such assertions conflate contempt for welfare with racism. As such, they should be dismissed on their face and not taken seriously.

    When one invokes racism, today, it is usually a sign that one knows that one's position cannot stand upon a foundation of fact and legitimacy, so the emotional appeal to race is made. The appeals are also tainted by the factually goofy notion that lationos, in general, and mexicans, in particular, are a race unto themselves.

    Mexican is not a race. Latino is not a race. Some mexicans are white; some are black and some have mixed racial compositions. But, in and of itself, mexicans are not a separate and distinct race.

    As an anarcho-free enterprise-individualist, I do not support the Arizona law because it would appear to strenghten the power of the state and further threaten individual liberty. That does not mean that I take leave of my senses and ignore the fact that there is a huge transfer of wealth from citizens who produce it to illegal immigrants.

  • &||

    Mexican is not a race. Latino is not a race. Some mexicans are white; some are black and some have mixed racial compositions.

    That's right. But it hasn't stopped the racist lefties on MSNBC and all the assorted Obama-smooching blogs from whining that "Arizona has made it illegal to be brown." Thinking with one's asshole does that to a person.

  • ||

    Again I will note that when stupid Americans from non-border states immigrate to border states, they gain political power and change the laws for the worse.

    As of the last census, 60% of Arizona's US-born population was born outside Arizona. Add the fact that that percentage has likely increased in the last decade to the fact that those under 18 are more likely to be Arizona-born and the fact that retirees moving to Arizona have the highest proclivities to vote, and the proportion of immigrant voters who are not comfortable with the way Arizona has operated for the past 160 years is overwhelming.

    No other border states have so great an immigration problem from other states. No other border states have such psycho laws in the works.

    Maybe Arizona should outlaw immigrants' voting until they've been resident 20 years or so.

  • Edward G.||

    How do you like your state's rights now, Moses?

  • Dathan, the Traitor Israelite||

    Yeah, I'm a Jew, see!

  • Wesley||

    I don't know the numbers, but Northeasterners and Californians are trying to ruin Texas, too.

  • Ernie the Bear||

    From my comfy sofa, insulated by 2500 miles and two entire countries, I'm failing to see that I have either the moral authority or the expertise to criticize Arizonans for their response to what they obviously consider to be a threat. I'm certainly not willing to live there to find out how real that threat might be. It's too fucking hot, and don't give me any of that "dry heat" bullshit.

  • ed||

    Best quote I've heard today: Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), as the "against it" guest on an MSNBC debate on the Arizona law, and one of the key players in passing ObamaCare, has just compared the Arizona law with Nazi Germany, but that's not the best part. He had the balls to say, "Some of us are for a reduced role of government in our lives." Wow.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Best quote I've heard today: Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), as the "against it" guest on an MSNBC debate on the Arizona law, and one of the key players in passing ObamaCare, has just compared the Arizona law with Nazi Germany, but that's not the best part. He had the balls to say, "Some of us are for a reduced role of government in our lives." Wow.


    Does he think Mexico is America's Auschwitz?

  • ed||

    Yup. At this very moment Arizona is lining up the boxcars.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Yup. At this very moment Arizona is lining up the boxcars.


    So who will pout Zyklon-B into the showers in Mexico?

  • ||

    """ "Some of us are for a reduced role of government in our lives."""

    He's right, he just not including himself.

  • ed||

    Technically true. He did say "some" of us. Weiner is a cunning bastard.

  • Captain Kanuck||

    We'd appreciate it if you'd build that wall between Canada and the US to keep the yankee wetbacks out when your empire collapses, which should be any day now. Get goin', chop chop.

  • Steve V||

    I really don't get how libertarians can want to open up our borders while we have the welfare state.

    It's best to treat the disease, but if you can't... treating the symptoms are better than nothing.

  • qwerty||

    This just in: Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201.....ay_labor_3

    So much for the idea that it is impossible to cut illegal immigration.

  • ||

    Standing near potted trees and bushes for sale at a Home Depot in east Phoenix, Diaz, 35, says he may follow three families in his neighborhood who moved to New Mexico because of the law. He says a friend is finding plenty of work in Dallas.

    Diaz says he has too much to lose by staying — he's supporting a wife and infant son back home in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, across the border from El Paso, Texas.

    "They depend on me to survive," he says. "I'm not going to wait for police to come and arrest me."

    Jose Armenta, a 33-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico's western coast, is already planning to move to Utah within the next 20 days because of a combination of the economy and the new law.

    Amount illegal immigration is actually cut according to evidence from the cited article? Zero.

  • ||

    Except we're talking about the Arizona law, and there is (anecdotal) evidence in the article that illegal immigration will be reduced in Arizona.

  • ||

    I suppose other states should thank Arizona for this selection mechanism that forces the internal migration of the brighter and more productive illegal residents.

  • ||

    Well, there you go. If illegals are such a boon, other states should be cheering the Arizona law.

  • ||

    Mexico acknowledges migrant abuse, pledges changes
    By MARK STEVENSON, Associated Press Writer Mark Stevenson, Associated Press Writer Wed Apr 28, 8:04 pm ET
    MEXICO CITY – Amnesty International called the abuse of migrants in Mexico a major human rights crisis Wednesday, and accused some officials of turning a blind eye or even participating in the kidnapping, rape and murder of migrants.

    The group's report comes at a sensitive time for Mexico, which is protesting the passage of a law in Arizona that criminalizes undocumented migrants.

    The Interior Department acknowledged in a statement that the mainly Central American migrants who pass through Mexico on their way to the United States suffer abuses, but attributed the problem to criminal gangs branching out into kidnapping and extortion of migrants.

    Rupert Knox, Amnesty's Mexico researcher, said in the report that the failure by authorities to tackle abuses against migrants has made their trip through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.

    "Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses," Knox said.

    Central American migrants are frequently pulled off trains, kidnapped en masse, held at gang hideouts and forced to call relatives in the U.S. to pay off the kidnappers. Such kidnappings affect thousands of migrants each year in Mexico, the report says.

    Many are beaten, raped or killed in the process.

    One of the main issues, Amnesty says, is that migrants fear they will be deported if they complain to Mexican authorities about abuses.

    At present, Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."

    The Interior Department said the government has taken some steps to combat abuses and Mexico's legislature is working to repeal Article 67 "so that no one can deny or restrict foreigners' access to justice and human rights, whatever their migratory status."

    The Amnesty report said one female migrant told researchers that Mexican federal police had forced her group off a train and stolen their belongings. Forced to walk, she said, she was subsequently attacked by a gang and raped.

    The Interior Department said it shares Amnesty's concern, and called the report "a valuable contribution."

    Mexico has long been offended by mistreatment of its own migrants in the United States.

    The Arizona law — slated to take effect in late July or early August — makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and allows police to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. Mexico has complained that the law would lend itself to racial profiling and discrimination.

  • ||

    read the law for yourself and decide dont just take media veiw on it below is the web site were you can find the bill I am not seeing the part about racial profiling
    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/4.....hs.doc.htm

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement