Arizona's New Immigration Law

I admit that I have not read every post so please forgive me if I am being repetitive of things already said.

1. Every country has the right to protect the integrity of its borders. Within our country, that authority belongs to the Feds. I understand this law is simply to allow States (Arizona) to "assist" the Feds where the States (Arizona) believe the Feds have failed to expend appropriate resources, BUT it seems to me that, at some level, there is an impermissible preemption. (Feds: You aren't enforcing the law the way we think it should be - therefore, we will enforce it our way). If this is the case, the Feds could (I think) have the law annulled in Federal court. I haven't heard anything about this and am not sure why, for those who oppose the law, this hasn't been pursued. Further, if the State is simply "enforcing" Federal law, the Feds (i.e. Dems) could change the Fed law such that the State's actions no longer coincide with the Federal mandate.

2. It's a thorny issue, it's being played for politics by both sides.

3. Historically, this country has grown stronger by assimilating immigrants and their cultures into the "melting pot". I don't know how long they have been this way, but I checked into how to become a "legal" immigrant into this country. It is extremely difficult.


4. I know it is difficult in other countries too, but, for me, that arguement falls into the "two wrongs don't make it right" category. Yes, Mexico is extremely repressive in its admission of immigrants and, in many ways, even more difficult than the US to enter legally. So? Has that created a better society for them? OR has it halted the influx of ideas and labor that would allow them to excel in the world market?

5. Bottom line, its a balancing act, somehow we need to protect the integrity of our borders and the fundamental principles of the founding fathers while, at the same time, continuing to encourage the absorbtion of diverse of ideas and cultures and recognizing that we are the destination of choice for many seeking a better life for themselves and their families.

No worries and thanks for the lady liberty words. :headbange
Long time back when people were flooding to the US it was not that big of a deal because goverment was much smaller and it did not provide all the benifits. Now we have to regulate the flow because the minute someone becomes a citizen they are now eligible for all these programs. You open up these benifits to ever Tom, Dick and harry and we have a really big problems. Last time I check the benfits where going broke without all these additional people.

^^wow Joe, way to be totally redundant and re-hash of everything already said.

Actually that was a very good summation of the balancing act of immigration.

Long time back when people were flooding to the US it was not that big of a deal because goverment was much smaller and it did not provide all the benifits. Now we have to regulate the flow because the minute someone becomes a citizen they are now eligible for all these programs. You open up these benifits to ever Tom, Dick and harry and we have a really big problems. Last time I check the benfits where going broke without all these additional people.
Well, we could always look at the overspending of the federal government as the bigger wrong, but that's not this conversation.

If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.


Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.


Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.

The source
Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)

Well, we could always look at the overspending of the federal government as the bigger wrong, but that's not this conversation.

Actuall the growing social programs are at the root of this problem and the reason they drain our resources.

You've posted that same link 3 times now. Again, if you take the case to say government is overspending, that is one aspect. But to say that these people are draining our society, well right now our society is draining our society.

What's the cost of no regualtions on Wall Street 786 billion dollars.

yup! and no one's gonna prosecute those "criminals" cuz they are legal white citizens who wear ties to work and send lobbyists to DC to blow politicians under the table of thousand dollar dinners.

If you’re an average American taxpayer, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have, since 2001, cost you personally $7,334, according to the “cost of war” counter created by the National Priorities Project (NPP). They have cost all Americans collectively more than $980,000,000,000.

have they "kept us safe" or just raised another generation or 2 of people willing to die to do us harm? have they kept us safe of just lined the pockets of Halliburton and Blackwater?

You've posted that same link 3 times now. Again, if you take the case to say government is overspending, that is one aspect. But to say that these people are draining our society, well right now our society is draining our society.

Well did you even look at the stats that the article provided? So we should just let more people drain the system even more?

[/B]

Well did you even look at the stats that the article provided? So we should just let more people drain the system even more?


again, seems to be okay on Wall Street where it's back to shady business as usual.

i realize we're mixing subjects here, but not really. it seems most people want to claim that they understand immigrants wanting to better their lives and it has nothing to do with racism or class warfare, just the fact that by doing it illegally, they are "draining the system" or "costing us taxpayers X-amount of dollars" and yet no one wants to treat the criminals on wall street as criminals who frauded the system.