On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote: No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food.
Who the hell cares about food? We're talking about illegals not some food regulation.
Overall he is trying to argue in favor of complete anarchy, so yes this does fall along the same lines.
You mean the Y guy? He's just making shit up as he goes. I entertain him with a few nibblets to chew and laugh as he frantically tries to come up with 1/2 a page of BS to try to confuse me.
On May 13 2010 13:19 phosphorylation wrote: maybe he is a clever little HS kid practicing for a speech and debate tournament spews a lot of shit that sound kinda ok but, in essence, meaningless and completely bullshit
I have started really slow, posing a small series of questions, and only one person has bothered to answer them. I then proceeded to re-explain my position multiple times as to why it is far more ethical and efficient to complain to the soup kitchen owner about giving free soup to those who "don't deserve it", so I don't know what to do anymore. You just seem to be invested in the idea that deporting is the only way to go. And I haven't even gotten into the economics of how costly it would be to deport >10 million people all over the country either... but bureaucrats don't really care about costs indeed, they just do it, the money isn't theirs, nor is it yours, right? Heh.
Do go ahead and show me where I'm wrong please... instead of just insulting... pretty please.
On May 13 2010 13:47 allluckysevens7777 wrote: The economics of illegal immigration, deporting, etc are way too complicated for me. Not smart enough for it. Not gonna try.
I like to think of it more like: "Hey, I'd like to sleep on your couch. I promise I won't steal anything or make a mess. I'll even sweep your living room." "Thanks, but I'd really rather you didn't." "Well, that's fine. Your door locks aren't so great. I can get in without damaging anything, or anyone noticing. You won't even know I was here. Thanks!"
I don't think this law was made in good spirit, and it really isn't a good idea. But anyone defending illegal immigrants needs to get a clue. The word is right there. Illegal. Advocate immigration law reform if you will; something probably needs to be done if the problem is as systemic as it's made to seem. Illegal immigrants, right now, are breaking US law, period.
If no one noticed he's there, then does it matter he's there? And if someone did notice, why not talk to him, require him to pay rent, and then if that fails, arrest him like you would anyone else?
I'm not de-facto defending illegal immigrants, I'm just saying, some people do want him there, since he's working for less, since he's renting someplace. The products and services he offers and is able to trade does help the other side of the exchange. The illegal is not an animal simply consuming, stealing everything he can... and if he were, well, he could be treated just like another criminal; doesn't really matter if he's illegal or not in that case.
If the system is so open that anyone can walk in and take what they want without noticing and being accounted for... well, then perhaps people ought to stop funding it? Or put a lock in it? Or require the users to pay? There's a tons of ways to fix that business model without forcing people out...
They're getting free food at a restaurant, which you're paying for whilst not getting any benefit from it yourself. Ok. Why complain about the freeloaders and not the restaurant?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store?
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote: My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food).
So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good?
I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure?
No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it.
Yeah well, you're forcing the companies to label their products the way you think customers would benefit from it. But companies already have the motive to do so on their own, don't they? So I don't think that's a good attempt to demonstrate why regulation is needed. You gotta mix child labor in, with environmental hazards and stuff.
On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote: Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
Yeah.
On May 13 2010 12:54 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better.
The restaurant was already giving out food for free and for that exact purpose... the bastard didn't steal from anybody... I'd say be mad at the restaurant for wasting your money. Beating on that one bastard alone won't stop others from coming in anyway~
On May 13 2010 12:57 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:55 Yurebis wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Do the illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? Which taxes are they not paying? Which services are they using that they're not paying? Why not get to the crust of it and ask (+answer) yourself these questions before complaining about freeloading illegal aliens?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we?
You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ...
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as?
School for sure, through property tax, and I'm not sure but I'd say public hospitals' emergency rooms too, eagerly waiting to be corrected.
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: I just like to keep people honest. Once they realize that it's an outrageous idea, the whole statist argument falls... And that's even regardless of what I say. They'll know it when they'll know it. When there's no demand, the suppliers have to shut down... so if there's no demand for absolute landlords, then there won't be any more absolute landlords any further. Same with public, unaccounted services.
The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them.
Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: The theater wasn't designed to show movies to everyone, it was designed to make a profit And before you ask, profit isn't a bad motive. I'm not explaining why, here, however.
I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability.
But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit?
Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit...
haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter
Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments.
What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
I'll explain it simply. Illegals leech from welfare programs meant for US citizens and legal immigrants. Illegals make pennies and will never pay it back. The state should kick the illegals out.
Wait, welfare programs meant for US citizens? How are the illegals able to enroll in them, if they don't have any proof of citizenship? And why can't the state simply require proper documents if it's true? Instead of you know, spending another bajillion dollars deporting everyone back. (Only so they can enter the country again through the same means, because you know, the market demand for them hasn't been altered)
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements.
He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused.
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote: I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
That is very nice of you both. Can you point out exactly where does my logic break? I guess you can't, or else you'd have done it before badmouthing people who have a different opinion than you.
We're not badmouthing you. The website is. We're just punching the keyboard and somehow, through magical bits, the forum is translating as such. Blame computers not us.
On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote: No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food.
And why do you think they would not do so without such regulation, as it supplies the demand for it, a demand noticeable given that voters wanted it as well?
Your ignorance on the matter is astounding. Illegals utilize education, medical, and incarceration services that are paid for predominantly by the state. Now, in earlier posts you have made the absolutely bewildering argument that we should not punish illegals for using those services, but rather we should punish the system (or change the system) that provides those services. Unfortunately, that is the one solution that cannot work or be implemented. If we did try that, we'd be creating a 15-20 million member disenfranchised population within the United States that was deprived of all access to health care and education, effectively preventing that population from ever being able to integrate within American culture at large. Do you know what happens when you have populations like that? Look at Israel for an extreme example or look at France for a milder one. At best, we'd have periodic riots. At worst, we'd have terrorism.
Unfortunately, the US cannot deprive the current population of illegals from access to the services that they have now. The only thing that can be done is to prevent the illegal population from growing any further and do whatever is practical to reduce the population of illegals that is already here. No, the US cannot deport everybody. However, there needs to be a much greater degree of enforcement of laws and a higher incidence of deportation if for no other reason than to deter illegals from coming here in the first place. Combine that with actual border security, and things will get better.
They're getting free food at a restaurant, which you're paying for whilst not getting any benefit from it yourself. Ok. Why complain about the freeloaders and not the restaurant?
Wow are you an idiot? If someone steals my money and buys a snack with the money do I complain about the crook or the convenience store?
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
On May 13 2010 12:38 Romantic wrote: My argument is most people are completely oblivious to the actual content of what they are eating in a Big Mac. You can say that they should look for it themselves and it isn't the governments business, but the information literally would not exist if it weren't for government forcing the information to be available.
Studies have shown people will very often pick healthier choices if they are presented with the information and a healthier option. That information and a healthier option is typically not available for the average dude to make that choice that is ultimately better for them in the long run. So, of course the company would want to supply X (but almost everyone could agree that its in the best interests of society if X is healthier food).
So to dumb things down for me, you mean there was this very life-standard-raising procedure that was unknown to all but government, and they selflessly obligated everyone to follow it for their own good?
I don't get how wouldn't it be freely adopted if it was recognized as so. You think it's so, people who read those labels think it's so, I think it's so too. Why the heck would a company not put those on to outperform companies that do not on this very useful and cheap procedure?
No, I don't want to FORCE anyone to follow a healthy diet as defined by experts, but I do want them to be informed on the options overwhelmingly shown to promote long, healthy life. All it would require is a menu with nutritional info on it.
Yeah well, you're forcing the companies to label their products the way you think customers would benefit from it. But companies already have the motive to do so on their own, don't they? So I don't think that's a good attempt to demonstrate why regulation is needed. You gotta mix child labor in, with environmental hazards and stuff.
On May 13 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote: Forcing them to do it would be what some Democrats have been trying to do, literally making it illegal to sell high fat content foods, denying any option to eat something unhealthy if you felt like it.
I just want nutritional information to be available everywhere large chain restaurants serve people.
If the average person decides to continue eating Big Macs after being given the nutritional information, I would let them do it (were i a politician).
Yeah.
On May 13 2010 12:54 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:46 Yurebis wrote:
1- The public funds are not yours. You forfeited them once you payed your taxes. Complain with the restaurant aka state. Vote wiser, send letters, all that wonderful democratic stuff. 2- The illegal aliens are not stealing from the public funds. The hospitals emergency rooms and schools are open tho whoever lives nearby. They do not ask for social security numbers or proof of citizenship for that exact reason. They could very well do so, but it would break the purpose of having a local public service. The illegal aliens are not stealing by entering and using them.
Why do you keep making the stupid restaurant analogy? You make no sense. If someone was eating restaurant food for free and it was because of him that I didn't get my order, I would give him an ass whooping. Next time, he'll know better.
The restaurant was already giving out food for free and for that exact purpose... the bastard didn't steal from anybody... I'd say be mad at the restaurant for wasting your money. Beating on that one bastard alone won't stop others from coming in anyway~
On May 13 2010 12:57 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:55 Yurebis wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Do the illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? Which taxes are they not paying? Which services are they using that they're not paying? Why not get to the crust of it and ask (+answer) yourself these questions before complaining about freeloading illegal aliens?
All the more reason that we need people living here to be documented rather than undocumented. So long as they remain undocumented, we'll never know, will we?
You mean no one knows these things? 1- do illegal immigrants pay taxes or not? which? Should be easily answered by any tax expert or enthusiast (lol tax enthusiast.. sounds wrong) 2-Which services are they using? Should be easily answered by knowing what public services can be used without a social security number.. 3-Why not ask yourself that? Should be able to be answered without recoursing to "I can't answer it unless everyone is documented and therefore there are no illegal aliens to account for" ...
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Because as far as I know, they do pay for most public utilities that people complain about.
Such as?
School for sure, through property tax, and I'm not sure but I'd say public hospitals' emergency rooms too, eagerly waiting to be corrected.
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: I just like to keep people honest. Once they realize that it's an outrageous idea, the whole statist argument falls... And that's even regardless of what I say. They'll know it when they'll know it. When there's no demand, the suppliers have to shut down... so if there's no demand for absolute landlords, then there won't be any more absolute landlords any further. Same with public, unaccounted services.
The government and state are important and necessary despite any and all arguments you may make against them. To me, you seem very idealistic, but not very practical. There will always be landlords whether or not people want them or like them.
Landlords, yeah, but absolute landlords that reign over all other landlords, seems silly to me. And it will indeed go on despite what I say, as long as people like you demand it (even without any logically explained reason)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: The theater wasn't designed to show movies to everyone, it was designed to make a profit And before you ask, profit isn't a bad motive. I'm not explaining why, here, however.
I never said profit was a bad motive. Just like a theater isn't designed to show movies to its patrons. Likewise, a government is designed with its citizens in mind. The government isn't a buffet table for anyone to come and take what they please. The government is very much like a business in that it has to manage its flow of resources, make investments, and maintain financial stability.
But without the competition. And only as much fiscal responsibility as it takes for them to keep afloat (borderline revolution lol)
On May 13 2010 12:42 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:14 Yurebis wrote: Limited budget? The state has a limited budget now? Since when? Before or after the trillion dollar deficit?
Yes, despite what you may have heard, resources are limited... Hence, the word DEFICIT in budget deficit...
haha It's limited by how much they can owe? doesn't sound that financially hard to manage to me, nor conventional finance for that matter
Dude we've answered you millions of times. Fact is that illegals take more than they give in. Fact is that illegals are Mexican citizens, they should go back to mexico. You're being just as dumb as you were in the Kespa thread where you didn't even know what Kespa was yet you made pages of arguments.
What are they doing wrong if the system allows them to? They are not stealing, period. The restaurant is giving food for free, and you're paying for it. Tell me how is that not a fair analogy. Tell me exactly where are they taking more in, and why is it wrong for them to do so. The system allows them to, and it could very well deny them. Yet it has not been so. It's not just the illegals, is it? You should be pissed of about everyone on welfare and receiving unemployment checks on those same grounds... And believe me, I dislike this whole mess, yet deporting a fraction of people won't stop it. Because it's the welfare system in place that promotes such as freeloading the "public good" (speaking in collective terms)... such persons will always exist.
I'll explain it simply. Illegals leech from welfare programs meant for US citizens and legal immigrants. Illegals make pennies and will never pay it back. The state should kick the illegals out.
Wait, welfare programs meant for US citizens? How are the illegals able to enroll in them, if they don't have any proof of citizenship? And why can't the state simply require proper documents if it's true? Instead of you know, spending another bajillion dollars deporting everyone back. (Only so they can enter the country again through the same means, because you know, the market demand for them hasn't been altered)
On May 13 2010 13:11 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 13:09 Yurebis wrote:
On May 13 2010 13:00 hacpee wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:58 JinMaikeul wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:49 jpak wrote:
On May 13 2010 12:48 JinMaikeul wrote: Yurebis, let's just get down to it. What's the actual point that you're trying to make? I see a lot of quoting and responding, but little in the way of a cohesive message or opinion...
Is it wrong to argue for the sake of arguing?
Not necessarily, but it's a waste of everyone's time if all he's going to do is argue against what other people say while never really saying anything himself. It makes it worse when it feels like he's saying one thing one moment and another thing another moment so long as it conflicts with the other person's statements.
He's just randomly saying random stuff. I think he's mentally confused.
On May 13 2010 13:02 jpak wrote: I think he's arguing just to drive you nuts. But we all know you're better than that.
That is very nice of you both. Can you point out exactly where does my logic break? I guess you can't, or else you'd have done it before badmouthing people who have a different opinion than you.
We're not badmouthing you. The website is. We're just punching the keyboard and somehow, through magical bits, the forum is translating as such. Blame computers not us.
Ha.
On May 13 2010 13:11 Romantic wrote: No, I am forcing them to label their food with the chemical makeup of the food.
And why do you think they would not do so without such regulation, as it supplies the demand for it, a demand noticeable given that voters wanted it as well?
Your ignorance on the matter is astounding. Illegals utilize education, medical, and incarceration services that are paid for predominantly by the state.
And the state taxes everyone... Illegals pay property taxes, indirect taxes, and more taxes I sure don't know about.
On May 13 2010 13:52 xDaunt wrote: Now, in earlier posts you have made the absolutely bewildering argument that we should not punish illegals for using those services, but rather we should punish the system (or change the system) that provides those services.
Require them to pay, or don't give them the services. It's pretty common in like, regular businesses around the world.
On May 13 2010 13:52 xDaunt wrote:Unfortunately, that is the one solution that cannot work or be implemented. If we did try that, we'd be creating a 15-20 million member disenfranchised population within the United States that was deprived of all access to health care and education
Negative, they can look for private ones. Did all the people in communist russia starve when the bread lines were taken down? No, the demand was still there, and it was supplied for profit...
On May 13 2010 13:52 xDaunt wrote:, effectively preventing that population from ever being able to integrate within American culture at large. Do you know what happens when you have populations like that? Look at Israel for an extreme example or look at France for a milder one. At best, we'd have periodic riots. At worst, we'd have terrorism.
There should be terrorism as is, since they are denied for a large part of services and plans which *do* require SSNs... hell, even for a driver's license you need proof of citizenship. Why aren't there riots for that? I mean... sorry but that's quite the fear mongering argument there.
On May 13 2010 13:52 xDaunt wrote: Unfortunately, the US cannot deprive the current population of illegals from access to the services that they have now. The only thing that can be done is to prevent the illegal population from growing any further and do whatever is practical to reduce the population of illegals that is already here. No, the US cannot deport everybody. However, there needs to be a much greater degree of enforcement of laws and a higher incidence of deportation if for no other reason than to deter illegals from coming here in the first place. Combine that with actual border security, and things will get better.
It's going to be more expensive than if you just required SSNs or require payment for those without...
Why is it such an outrageous idea to make people pay for services? I mean... you guys say I'm being ignorant, but I really don't get it why the only options are "FREE" or "BE GONE"...
On May 13 2010 13:53 Weedman wrote: How about we don't answer you dumb questions and just return to insulting you.
Everytime someone says how you are wrong you answer with:
Derpaderp derp mcderp show me how I am wrong please hmmmmm?
Theres a spaceship and da aliens let some other aliens on blah blah blah racism derp total bullshit derp restaurants and magnets wtf. stfu.
Why are they dumb? Do point out. I'd like to know... I though I was really good at sneaking in empty arguments in my posts, but you guys just do it in the open, and accuse me of doing it! That's pro.
I've been following this thread for a bit and I just had to jump in and back up yurebis. I have to admit its been kind of funny seeing you all break down from writing legitimate arguments to just insutling him, but in reality it's pretty sad. The restaurant analogy is genious. I'm having a hard time understanding how you guys can't make sense out of it ( no offense). The most basic point yurebis has made is: get mad at the government for letting the system get so out of control, not illegal immigrants who are undeniably using resources that are available ( correct me if im wrong yurebis but that does seem to be the core of your argument.)
On May 13 2010 14:06 lenin wrote: I've been following this thread for a bit and I just had to jump in and back up yurebis. I have to admit its been kind of funny seeing you all break down from writing legitimate arguments to just insutling him, but in reality it's pretty sad. The restaurant analogy is genious. I'm having a hard time understanding how you guys can't make sense out of it ( no offense). The most basic point yurebis has made is: get mad at the government for letting the system get so out of control, not illegal immigrants who are undeniably using resources that are available ( correct me if im wrong yurebis but that does seem to be your basic premise).
That is exactly correct, thanks for the pat on the back. Oh, that rhymes.
If you have no natural rights issues with illegal immigration, than the cultural issues are enough to make it illegal. I wonder how it feels to endanger your safety by wearing an American flag shirt to school? I wonder what its like for a kid applying to a mexican restaurant for a summer job? (I guess there is no discrimination when immigrants don't hire you) Not wanting your way of life to be invaded is a valid reason for wanting to limit immigration. There is one reason for you.
Second, your economic-only reasons still don't make any sense. People keep mentioning medical care, schooling, etc. While these are definitely strains to the economy, the real thing that people don't think about is that immigrants have 2 or 3 important characteristics that damage the economy. 1) They take money out of the country and send it back to their own country. 2) They don't go into debt. New debt is how the economy is sustained, because money is debt. If they aren't acquiring new debt, they aren't helping the economy. For example, using credit cards, buying a house, or buying a car puts money in the economy. 3) They keep money in their own communities. Whereas a white person may hire either another white person or a mexican, eat at mexican restaurants, or get their car fixed at a mexican auto shop, an illegal immigrant will likely only hire another mexican, largely eat at mexican restaurants, and hire another mexican to fix their car. The result is a net transfer of money.
So for both cultural and economic reasons, it doesn't make sense to have large autonomous communities of illegal immigrants. You can argue with my economic reasons forever since its a screwed up subject, but cultural reasons alone clearly demonstrate a reason to limit immigration.
It's funny that you keep repeating that even though we've already seen that irregular migrants create a surplus in medicine, Furthermore, you've been completely unable to show that they create an overall negative effect on the economy (probably because the opposite is true.) I'm sure there's a cost to the legal system, however given they actually commit crimes at lower rates than American citizens, a large burden of the cost is simply put towards the system trying to stop them. Not only is this law going to drastically increase the operating costs of Arizona PDs, but the ridiculous borders that have been erected over the past 10 years have been costly and wasteful. The Pew Center also conducted a report on it, that I can't find now.
Half of the irregular migrants in the US are from Mexico and among that, the majority are single young , wage-seeking men. You're (CIS is) drastically overestimating the cost to services like education, compared to the production benefits, increased consumer market (yes, they spend a higher % of income than the average American, as well (on wholesome things like their child's wellbeing, too)) and ignoring the fact that many DO NOT WANT TO LIVE HERE. Most are seasonal migrants and increasing border restrictions actually makes them more likely to become permanent residents.
Furthermore, there's actually easier legislative options that would reduce their cost on services while keeping the productive workforce intact. Unless you're on board with haypee? in thinking that people with BAs are going to suddenly hop into construction and agriculture without training for a couple of years until their normal jobs are restored (and then after that, who fills those jobs?) I certainly wouldn't trust the sturdiness of a house built by them.
And again, you're missing the constitutionality of the law. It has none. "Just carry your papers" is one of the silliest responses out there and what's almost as entertaining is how so-called libertarians have backed away from the issue because they don't want to piss off a moral majority. In fairness, several researchers from CATO remain on board with a pro-immigration stance.
On May 13 2010 14:15 fight_or_flight wrote: If you have no natural rights issues with illegal immigration, than the cultural issues are enough to make it illegal. I wonder how it feels to endanger your safety by wearing an American flag shirt to school? I wonder what its like for a kid applying to a mexican restaurant for a summer job? (I guess there is no discrimination when immigrants don't hire you) Not wanting your way of life to be invaded is a valid reason for wanting to limit immigration. There is one reason for you.
Discrimination, not unlike violence overall... is funnily enough, unprofitable. Schools benefit from keeping discrimination down as it interferes with the "learning process". Employers that discriminate on employees may be missing out good ones and therefore losing an opportunity. (The mexican restaurant not being a good example since the restaurant does usually want mexican employees to keep the mexican... theme. So it has a purpose then... it's not just "I'm gonna screw people over and do a shitty job as an entrepreneur hur hur") Your way of life or culture is under no threat unless that foreign culture is violent, in which case practitioners of such culture can be treated just like criminals, no matter where they come from.
On May 13 2010 14:15 fight_or_flight wrote: Second, your economic-only reasons still don't make any sense. People keep mentioning medical care, schooling, etc. While these are definitely strains to the economy, the real thing that people don't think about is that immigrants have 2 or 3 important characteristics that damage the economy. 1) They take money out of the country and send it back to their own country.
Irrelevant. You have no claim over how people spend their money. Unless you want to be a state bureaucrat and say you do, then pass some regulation restricting people from sending money out in a mercantilist attempt to improve people's lives...
On May 13 2010 14:15 fight_or_flight wrote: 2) They don't go into debt. New debt is how the economy is sustained, because money is debt. If they aren't acquiring new debt, they aren't helping the economy. For example, using credit cards, buying a house, or buying a car puts money in the economy.
... so because the government+banks don't allow them to get credit cards (actually some banks do, I know many illegals with credit cards, loans, mortgages, all of it) the illegals are to blame for not having them? Is that right? Well, blame the government+banks for not allowing them to. Or even better, don't blame anyone, because you don't have a decent claim over people's property.
On May 13 2010 14:15 fight_or_flight wrote: 3) They keep money in their own communities. Whereas a white person may hire either another white person or a mexican, eat at mexican restaurants, or get their car fixed at a mexican auto shop, an illegal immigrant will likely only hire another mexican, largely eat at mexican restaurants, and hire another mexican to fix their car. The result is a net transfer of money
And americans don't particularly go to mexican restaurants as much as mexicans. Okay. How is that bad? It's peoples' choices... that's how the market functions, a bunch of different people, different means, different ends...
On May 13 2010 14:15 fight_or_flight wrote: So for both cultural and economic reasons, it doesn't make sense to have large autonomous communities of illegal immigrants. You can argue with my economic reasons forever since its a screwed up subject, but cultural reasons alone clearly demonstrate a reason to limit immigration.
Can you give me a very simple example why do you *need* a cop to stop someone from culturally invading you? For matters that otherwise can't be seen as a misdemeanor or criminal act? I mean... I really can't see it.
On May 13 2010 14:25 tryclops wrote: I think logical fallacies and flashpoints are currently beating all arguments.
On May 13 2010 14:06 lenin wrote:The most basic point yurebis has made is: get mad at the government for letting the system get so out of control, not illegal immigrants who are undeniably using resources that are available ( correct me if im wrong yurebis but that does seem to be the core of your argument.)
And that most basic point is retarded. How about we get mad at the government for not getting off their asses and doing something (except for Arizona who realizes this and is actually taking a first step) AND we get mad at the assholes who are undeniably using resources, breaking laws, and abusing the system as well?
While we are at it how about we get mad at protestors who's ideology is blinding them to the truth. Seriously, go look at Mexico's immigration laws and see what they do to illegals there. It is absolutely ridiculous what Americans put up with in comparison because of stupid ideology.
On May 13 2010 14:06 lenin wrote:The most basic point yurebis has made is: get mad at the government for letting the system get so out of control, not illegal immigrants who are undeniably using resources that are available ( correct me if im wrong yurebis but that does seem to be the core of your argument.)
And that most basic point is retarded. How about we get mad at the government for not getting off their asses and doing something (except for Arizona who realizes this and is actually taking a first step) AND we get mad at the assholes who are undeniably using resources, breaking laws, and abusing the system as well?
1-Because the illegal freeloaders are acting on an economical opportunity that anyone else would take... You're not solving the demand for illegal aliens by just deporting them. It's not a solution. 2- You shun on them because they have no state approval. If a law was passed tomorrow that approved them to, and made them pay for everything as much as anyone else (which I believe they already do though it's not the main point), I doubt you'd still be disapproving.
Why is the state's labeling of whether someone's legal or illegal that important to you? Should the merits not come from the subjects themselves?
On May 13 2010 13:49 Yurebis wrote: If no one noticed he's there, then does it matter he's there? And if someone did notice, why not talk to him, require him to pay rent, and then if that fails, arrest him like you would anyone else?
I'm not de-facto defending illegal immigrants, I'm just saying, some people do want him there, since he's working for less, since he's renting someplace. The products and services he offers and is able to trade does help the other side of the exchange. The illegal is not an animal simply consuming, stealing everything he can... and if he were, well, he could be treated just like another criminal; doesn't really matter if he's illegal or not in that case.
If the system is so open that anyone can walk in and take what they want without noticing and being accounted for... well, then perhaps people ought to stop funding it? Or put a lock in it? Or require the users to pay? There's a tons of ways to fix that business model without forcing people out...
Well, it does matter if nobody's noticed. It's a matter of being able to set reasonable boundaries and limitations on one's own territory (house, nation, what have you). I don't want the police coming into my house and rooting through my things even if they leave no trace. I have nothing to hide, it's just an invasion of my personal territory. As is a citizen of one nation entering another without regard to law. I think that you have a lot of good points there; it's why I said that immigration law probably needs reformed. But under current law, deportation and plain saying "we don't want you here" is entirely justified. And it bothers me when people say "no you have no right to do that". Same reason it bothers me when people get all riled up over marijuana imprisonments. Vote Nader or something. Work within the legal framework to change things, don't just ignore the law. If the Hispanic community in the US is such a powerful economic influence, organize and contribute to a political campaign that supports your views. Don't boycott businesses, it doesn't really serve anyone's best interests in the long run.
On May 13 2010 14:46 Yurebis wrote:1-Because the illegal freeloaders are acting on an economical opportunity that anyone else would take... You're not solving the demand for illegal aliens by just deporting them. It's not a solution. 2- You shun on them because they have no state approval. If a law was passed tomorrow that approved them to, and made them pay for everything as much as anyone else (which I believe they already do though it's not the main point), I doubt you'd still be disapproving.
Why is the state's labeling of whether someone's legal or illegal that important to you? Should the merits not come from the subjects themselves?
I was seriously thinking about getting into it with you Yurebis, but I'm refraining. I'll just end with this...until we come up with solutions this whole entire thing is going nowhere but endless arguing from all sides. We have to shut down the border completely and then go from there.
nothing at all wrong with racial profiling, history has never shown us that it can bite us in the ass.
regardless, it's just another example of governmental bodies completely missing the real issue. i know a pretty large amount of illegal immigrants...many of them have lived in america since they could walk but for one reason or another immigration law makes it almost impossible for them to obtain citizenship (marraige and owning a business that earns 7 figures a year are essentially the easiest ways). All of them are hardworking, honest, humble, and never do anything to break any laws/disrupt peaceful living...in other words, they would be shining examples of great american citizens if it wasn't for the ridiculous immigration laws. most of them came to america to escape the awful living conditions of northern mexico and cartel violence in places like juarez, my gf (who is legal) was born in chihuahua which is a suburb of juarez.
i really don't think people in this thread actually know who most of these illegal immigrants are. in my experience, these are mostly very good people that do not deserve to be essentially hunted like this. on top of that, them sucking up national resources is a joke. sure they can't pay taxes but they can't apply for any medical/welfare benefits either, on top of that it's almost impossible for them to own anything like cars or houses. on top of that, for them to even get work without an ss number they have to either take a huge paycut or do it a whole fucking lot better than their competition (which is often the case). in other words, whatever resources they earn they'll lose anyway to the difficulties of not being a citizen, and im sure even if you were to ask most illegals they would tell you they'd much rather be a citizen then not even if it meant they had to pay taxes.
On May 13 2010 05:41 Sins wrote: I would rather have a federal bill that discriminates against ALL individuals than have a bill that discriminates against someone's visible characteristics. I oppose this bill and feel sad for those that are simply supporting it on xenophobic grounds.
Here's the problem with the debate. Those who are opposing the new Arizona law are blindly chalking up support for the law to "racism" or "xenophobia," without considering the real, tangible problems that illegal immigration causes.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that you, personally, are guilty of this; the balance of your comment suggests that you are not. However, far too many people are.
Please elaborate on the problems that "illegal" immigrates cause? We as a whole benefit far greater than they exploit the system. How is it that our first class country is able to prevail w/ our agricultural products being so cheap? Illegal immigrants are far more deserving even at the cost of our healthcare system, in order for them to seek the medical attention they need to continue working in the fields. As for them "not paying taxes" how do they manage to manipulate the system? Illegal immigrants do pay their taxes, what do you think ITIN is for? And if they are NOT paying it then they only LOSE the benefits that this country supplies them with. Don't blindly confuse me to be part of your constituent; I am not your buddy.
Wow, no good deed goes unpunished. I went out of my way to be friendly and explicitly give you the benefit of the doubt, and you respond with this outright incivility? Anyway, as you will....
Go educate yourself and read up on the earlier parts of the thread. The undeniable truth is that illegal immigrants do not contribute more to the system than they take out of it. There are multiple articles cited above demonstrating that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the country. More importantly, they are a very severe net drain upon states and communities where there are large communities of illegal immigrants. Yes, some illegal immigrants pay taxes. However, they do not even come close to, as a group, paying enough taxes to cover all of the social benefits that they use. THAT is why the Arizona bill was passed and THAT is why most Americans support it and would like to see similar measures enacted in their states or at a national level.
Yes, I am deliberately discourteous cause you failed to confirm that share the same country bumpkin viewspoints. Also I must go educate myself simply because I have opposing view points! Also don't vaguely elude to some statements like I need to go search myself in order to respond. How about you post them yourself which exact ideas you are for.
I don't care if people espouse a point of view that disagrees with my own as long as that point of view is informed and grounded in fact. Arguing that illegal immigrants do not constitute a fiscal burden upon the country at both national and state levels (especially at the state level) is proof that your opinion is uneducated on this matter and that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to argue to that illegal immigrants, despite the fiscal burdens, are good for the country, fine. However, your argument apparently is that there are no problems associated with illegal immigration at all. Sorry, but that is as stupid as it is uninformed.
Anyway, since you're apparently too lazy to go read earlier parts of the thread, here are the main things that you should read:
Stop using ad hominem remarks it will not validate your points! Apparently you firmly believe that those individuals who are under the notion that "illegal" immigrants are NOT a burden are "uneducated". Well that's very bigot of you, I'm just responding with the same chauvinist courtesy. I find it hilarious the rhetoric you're spewing without even questioning it because you're denying natives who are more deserving of their inherited resources than you are.
I also never stated, "However, your argument apparently is that there are no problems associated with illegal immigration at all" in fact I would like those individuals that do indeed commit crimes to be deported! Most Mexicans have zero tolerance for criminals which just illustrate to you how they treat them in Mexican prison. Their culture carries heavier morals and discipline since 80% percent of them are practicing Catholics.
Also here's some opposing views but I doubt I'll convince you seen you're unwilling to dispose of your already existing prejudices:
Don't look at me and complain about ad hominem attacks. You're the guy that decided to be " deliberately discourteous" as you so eloquently put it earlier. Also, I never once attacked you personally. Just your opinions. Now, whether the stupidity of some of the things that you have said reflect poorly upon you personally is something that's up to the audience. And yes, anyone who does not recognize the burdens that illegal immigrants pose is either uneducated or grossly ignorant. I've give you plenty of information to arm yourself for intelligent conversation on the topic. I even gave you a valid argument on which you could stand. What you do with those is up to you.
Anyway, let's turn to your authorities:
[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN26407393] This article is not on point. Again, you are confusing the issue of how illegal immigrants affect the US as a whole and how illegal immigrants affect local communities. On a national level, no, illegal immigrants aren't going to over-burden the health system because most communities around the USA do not have large illegal populations. Now, how illegal immigrants affect just Arizona is another matter. If you can't even understand this basic concept of national vs local effects of illegal immigration, you should just quit now.
[http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006-12-15/us/illegal_immigrants_not_burden_health_care.htm] [http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=162600004] So here you have two articles quoting two studies. One study says illegal immigrants cost $1.1 billion nationally for health care. The other says that the cost is $1.4 billion for Los Angeles alone. A good family friend of mine is a CFO at a major hospital in California. I assure you that the latter study is the more accurate one.
[http://www.examiner.com/x-21635-El-Paso-Culture-Examiner~y2009m12d29-Illegal-Immigrants-do-not-drain-public-services] This article is a joke. No citations. Just unsubstantiated garbage. His claim that illegal immigrants pay high levels of taxes, especially that they pay enough taxes to cover their services, is pure bullshit. Most illegal immigrants do not pay taxes because they have to stay off the grid for obvious reasons. Go find a study with real facts and citations like the ones that I posted.
[http://www.visalaw.com/h09nov/13hnov09.html] This article has the same problems as the Reuters article.
[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/illegals-medica.html] This article also isn't on point. It talks about doctors suing over MediCal (medicaid for California) reimbursements. As the doctors pointed out, medicaid does not concern illegal immigrants. What the article does not discuss is how hospitals and medical providers are often left uncompensated for treatment that they give to illegal immigrants. That's another topic.
None of these articles are particularly useful or on point. Furthermore, they only address health care, which is not even the biggest problem. Where are you authorities on how illegal immigration increases state education costs? How about the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens that are criminals? Go back to the drawing board, tiger.
How is it that illegal immigrants can maintain life support in Arizona/California and seek medical attention without working? Because each individual does work which creates a productive society in which they are being paid BELOW the minimum wage! And those that have committed crimes are sent to federal jail then to ICE to be deported or automatically deported even if it's a minor crime. Most of your statements can be easily refuted with the simple suggestion that illegals are taking the lowest unwanted jobs with the lowest pay possible! These are the jobs that Americans can easily charge $13-20 dollars per hour with medical benefits! Americans have this portrayal of life that they are above any sort of menial labor and will not clean toilets, streets, taking care of other people's children, washing cars, etc. So get off your invisible high horse and acknowledge these people's hard work. And ignore even the minor decadence that they produce since their more of a benefit to American society. Which you so ignorantly consume everyday or receive in every day life.They're surely paying for their upkeep and more!
It's simply that they're being used as a scapegoat for lack of leadership in finding real solutions to fix their own economies! Even an uneducated neanderthal like yourself can understand this simple concept of productivity!
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: Okay, so the restaurant has an open door,
If by the door being open, you mean this country is open to people just walking in, it's not. Illegal immigrants don't just walk into this country. They either enter it on false pretenses and never leave or they sneak in. It's not anywhere near as open as just walking through a door.
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: doesn't require people to prove their "restaurant membership", just gives them the food, and you're blaming people for taking it, because they're not really members?
It's more like they're sneaking in and picking food off the plates of paying customers rather than the restaurant giving away free food. Citizens pay their taxes and the government provides services for them. The illegal immigrants pretty much come and use those services that LEGAL RESIDENTS paid for. I really don't understand why you keep asserting that the restaurant or the country for the matter is just giving things out. These things are being paid for by the intended consumers. Of course if the restaurant hires security to remove these people, you're probably going to argue that it's their right to be there are eat what they want, which is pretty much what you've done and why this discussion is utterly pointless despite the fact that I've already shown why this is a dumb analogy.
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: Really? That's an awfully broken system that's been purposely devised that way.
It obviously hasn't been purposely devised for illegal immigrants to come in and burden our tax-paying society.
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: Make them require social security numbers at those places, problem solved.
So when someone is rushed into the emergency room, we're going to require them to give us social security numbers? When someone is incarcerated, we are going to require them to give us a social security number or else they don't receive the "service" of being incarcerated? Stop being absurd. That aside, how would that be any different in practice than this proposed law in Arizona that's already being flamed to hell? Look at the outrage over suspicious people being asked to prove their legal status. What do you think will happen if we started asking everyone for their legal status wherever they went? Do you seriously think this is a practical answer?
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: Make them pay for it, problem solved.
No, problem not solved. In order to be able to make them pay for it, you've got to be able to keep them accountable. When there's no documentation to prove that they even exist, there's no possible way to account for them. This is the inherent problem with illegal immigration.
On May 13 2010 13:42 Yurebis wrote: It's not really that hard solving problems without using the cops... people used to be praised for that in fact, but today it seems like it's the opposite. I'm the one being called an idiot for trying to, heh.
It's actually quite hard because without law enforcement officials, how would you enforce any solution you propose? If you think it's so easy, why don't you enlighten us with your brilliant method of fixing a legal problem without the use of law enforcement?
Stop being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative... All you're doing is arguing the merit of things based on your idealistic view of how the world SHOULD be without any regard to practicality. Your solutions are simplistic and childish at best and fail to take into account the most obvious things such as human nature and politics. In the real world (where we live) an impractical solution is not a solution at all regardless of how good it may sound or look on paper. You're essentially proposing anarchy, but in your fantasy world, anarchy works because everything will work itself out according to the misguided logic you seem to follow. You may think you're making brilliant arguments, but what the rest of us is hearing is no different from someone saying:
"World peace is easy to achieve. Everyone just has to get along with each other and be friends..."
Well obviously if the problem was so easy to fix, it would have been fixed many times over by now. The fact that a solution hasn't come forth is because there is no simple solution that works in practice. The same applies to the issue of illegal immigration. Just about everyone realizes that there's a problem, but they also realize things aren't so cut and dry. It's obvious we can't just screen everyone in the country and throw out the ones that don't belong here. There would be serious economic and human rights implications there. We can't just cut off all tax-funded services to illegal immigrants because that would mean they would never get educated or be able to have access to healthcare, which would promptly lead to cries of racism and discrimination across the Hispanic community be they founded or not. Apparently we can't even increase the security at the borders to slow down the bleeding because that's "racist" and "xenophobic" too... And most certainly we can't simply continue to tolerate things as they are now because the problem is only getting worse with time. So where the hell in all that do you see a simple solution that doesn't cause a whole bunch of other problems?
I love a meaningful debate as much as the next person over, but this debate is hardly meaningful. On the one hand you talk about how people should pretty much be able to go and live where they want and it's just the government that's being unreasonable by laying down laws regarding who can come and live within its boundaries. Then you talk about how "public money" should be for the good of everyone, legal or not. Then when you talk about solutions to the issue of illegal immigration you say that the solution is to deny them services unless they can prove their legal status or make them directly pay for these services which you should very well know they'd never be able to afford, so it's pretty much indirectly denying them services. How do you go from saying they should be given services to proposing the solution to be denying them services? This is why I really can't take you seriously. Unless you have some sort of solid stance on something, please just stop posting. All you're doing is instigating a meaningless argument for which you have no solidified position or opinion. Your opinion is essentially just the opposite of whoever happens to be posting in response to you at the time.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf NBA superstar Charles Barkley and others such as myself are outraged with this new law. Now officers can racially profile anyone who looks Mexican and ask them for their legality papers. I asked my mexican roommate what he would do if a cop asked him, he replied that he would tell the cop, "go fuck yourself."
According to the US Census Bureau, AZ had a 6,595,778 population in 2009. In 2008 30.1% of these people were persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Furthermore, Arizona used to be in Mexico... "In the Mexican–American War (1847), the U.S. occupied Mexico City and forced the newly founded Mexican Republic to give up its northern territories, including what later became Arizona" (wiki) Then again, countless Native American tribes were deported when we claimed America, so I gather this is standard protocol.
This law has already started protests of the state of Arizona, including one by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who refuses to uphold the law, saying it is "unwise", "stupid", and "racist."
Personally, as a non-mexican arizonan i find this law comparable to Nazi Germany, and just flat out wack. Thoughts? If anyone is for this law please state your reasoning as it baffles me that a resident of this fine state would support it.
1. The law doesn't allow a cop to just walk up to any Mexican and ask for their papers... so I wish ignorant people like the OP would stop saying it would be open season on Mexicans. You can only question someone if it is during a police required situation (like if someone had a car crash).
2. The law specifically says you can't profile based on race. If you don't think this will work then you have a problem with police not the law. Infact, if the police officer can't prove he had merit to ask then he can be SUED. I'm sure they will still run around racial profiling.
3. If you are in the US on a vista or visiting for whatever reason FEDERAL law already says you must carry documentation with you. Last I checked it's still ILLEGAL to be in the country so really all this does is enforce long-standing federal law. What it does is give is officers a legal backing for following up on suspicions.
4. Your roommate is a moron. You can't choose to not follow certain laws just because you don't want to.
5. Comparing this to Nazi Germany is as pathetic as Tea partiers who compare higher tax rates (very low historically) to having genocide commited against them.
6. Noone should give a shit waht the cheif of police's and such say because they are political figureheads. It's widely known that while the CoP are against this law the actual police orginizations are for it.
7. Your example of Arizona being a part of Mexico at one point is absurd and non-relevant. we just magically owned the whole east and north parts of the country from nothingness I suppose.
8. Our state passed it. Most of the people in the state (and apparently the country by many polls) are for this law. This is a democracy. On top of that we have state rights. Deal with it or leave the country or just don't come to Arizona we don't care.
Everything you said makes sense except for point 2.
Suing police officers usually ends up being futile and is just a dumb idea...furthermore you're not going to sue for a police officer being a racist prick and making you show papers for no other reason than that you don't look white. Lawsuits cost a lot of money and even more time. That doesn't make this law ok.
This is going to lead to a lot of unfortunate situations where the cop was, indeed, being a racist asshole, and where the victim really can't do anything about it.
You can't solve everything with a lawsuit - most especially cases regarding law enforcement abuse.
EPT
