Arizona Immigration Law: Examining the Debate

[MotoH]

Do you have a suggested plan mgb? I would be interested in hearing it.

 

[russ_watters]

A check on citizenship doesn't prevent an immediate accident that may harm another such as a sobriety check.

It sounds like you are saying that the entirety of traffic police's efforts should be focused on preventing traffic deaths and that any effort of theirs at all taken away from that should be discouraged. I disagree. I think traffic cops should be looking for any and all crimes that fall within their jurisdiction and I think that that is probably what they are charged to do. That commonly includes thefts, drug offenses, prostitution, etc. Besides which, the amount of effort required to check IDs for people already pulled over for a traffic stop is insignificant. I see no good reason not to do it.

We don't stop everyone walking out of Target or Walmart ensuring they haven't stolen an item because they "look" like they might shoplift.

You're saying you've never been shopping at a store near Christmas that checked the receipt of everyone leaving the store? I have. I think it is a good idea if shoplifting is an issue.

This is essentially what this new law does-a check on someone who "looks" like they may not have been born here.

That's why it is best to avoid the racial profiling issue entirely and check everyone. Again, if we remove the racial component entirely, would you then favor the idea? This is why I say the racial profiling issue is just a strawman. People refuse to let go of it even if a procedure is created that can easily eliminate the issue.

Have you ever been to Phoenix Arizona?

Yes.

There is a huge amount of Hispanics who are legal, who came here for a better life because, as Evo states, their home country doesn't do for them as America would. America was founded upon immigrants wanting a better life-probably your ancestors seeking a better life, unless you are 100% Native American.

Except for the oxymoron in the last line (immigrant /= native american), I agree completely. But again, this is completely irrelevant.

EVERYONE (legals anyway) pays into the tax system-Medicare taxes and FICA at 7.65%.

Medicare and FICA are moneys that come back to you so they are separate from the normal federal budget. They are not part of the day-to-day functioning of the government. All of the *normal* functions of government (everything from the space program to the financial balout and stimulus to roads to defense) are paid for by federal income taxes. And again, slightly less than the bottom half of the country pays no federal income taxes (or receives money instead of paying it).

Furthermore:

Even if they get every dime back on their refund...

That doesn't make sense. Your refund doesn't have much to do with whether you pay a net tax. It is just about whether you've paid much more or less during the year than you should have...you know about witholding, right? What you pay on April 15th is not your tax, it is just the difference between the witholding and what your tax for that year is.

...the employer matches the FICA/HI taxes, so by them being legal, they do contribute.

FICA and Medicare are money paid for your own insurance, so you get it back. Obviously, if someone is here illegally, they shouldn't be getting free healthcare or a free pension, so those taxes are irrelevant to the issue. People who are in the US illegally, just by being here, get the benefit of our roads, our military, our police, etc. These things they (and everyone else in the bottom half) get for free.

Depending upon the state, citizens can pay an even higher state income tax such as here in Oregon where we pay nearly 9%, the "poor" don't get that nice tax break either like they do on federal income tax. Your comment that the poor don't contribute is quite biased and suggests they are a drain on the tax system.

No, Kerrie, clearly it is you who is posting based on bias because though you put the word in quotes, I didn't use the word "poor". The reason it is it simply doesn't apply here. The poverty line is somewhere around 15% and there is an entire 'nother third of the population above the poverty line who pays no federal income tax or gets money back from the federal government. These people are not poor, but they are still a drain on society.

There is no doubt that a new immigrant will contribute more in taxes than an illegal.

Clearly. But a legal immigrant will also get more benefits than an illegal, so saying that is irrelevant. So I postulate that a legal immigrant is likely to contribute more than an illegal immigrant because the effort required to become a legal immigrant makes for higher quality immigrants.

We could also spend the tax dollars YOU pay and deport them, another option.

Definitely my preference. It couldn't possibly cost more to deport an illegal immigrant than it does to provide them free healthcare for life.

 

[russ_watters]

So everybody that isn't blonde and blue eyed has to carry a passport everywhere in case of "Papiere, Bitte" ?

Why not just eliminate the issue of race and just make everyone carry an ID?

If you are a citizen but went out jogging or just to the store without your passport do you just get to spend 48hours in jail or is there a fine?

The way the law reads, you can't be stopped unless you are associated with another crime, so that's a strawman. But if you are associated with another crime, you can be put in jail until your identity is established. So it's up to you if it takes 1 hour or 48 hours.

Again, the arguments against ID checks are virtually all stramen.

 

[russ_watters]

The news report said the law would give police powers to detain anyone they SUSPECTED of being an illegal immigrant.
That translates into arresting anyone that isn't obviously native-american who isn't carrying a passport.

Right, so what is your point about "white guys"?

Anyone white in America must be an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants...

Yes...

...and since white people are in a majority if there is no profiling then those are the ones you should be targeting.

"If there is no profiling, then those are the ones you should be targeting." Huh? Don't you mean if there is profiling then those are the ones you should be targeting? You're saying that since all whites are immigrants or decendents of immigrants, all should be racially profiled as potential illegals.

Obiously, this is silly because of the "decendents of immigrants" part. A "decendent of immigrant" is almost certainly a citizen. Statistically, a white person is more likely to be a citizen/legal than a hispanic, particularly in an area where illegal immigration is prevalent. You're trying to make a statistical argument against racial profiling working, but you're analyzing the data badly.

If you are only looking for people you suspect of being foreign what other factor could there be?

You're asking what other factor besides race could make you believe someone is "foreign" (and assuming "foreign" = illegal?). Really? I'm not sure I want to answer that! Think about it some more and try again tomorrow!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I went back to the original quotes since I thought it would be easier.

We're not talking about private property, we're talking about cars on the street. Right now, police can put up sobriety checkpoints and test drivers for sobriety without probable cause. Why could a citizenship status check not be a component of this?

The USSC has determined sobriety check points to be a legal exception to the search and seizure clause because it is based on a compelling state interest in making sure that the streets are safe from drunk drivers*. There also tend to be laws regulating the manner in which sobriety check points can be implemented, here this even includes putting an announcement in the local paper before the check point is scheduled. As already noted the protection from illegal search and seizure applies as well to your person and your documents. Randomly stopping people to "check their papers" is hardly likely to pass muster. The equal protection clause protects anyone from being singled out by law or the practical application of the law so all persons would have to be checked for legal citizenship. Good luck in proving to the court that there is a compelling state interest to randomly check all persons' citizenship status.

While I don't agree personally with the actual law, I do hope Arizona's radicalism will instigate immigration reform. Just think, if a large chunk of illegals were paying taxes on the money they are making, that would be a huge influx of revenue for the USA.

Many illegals do have regular jobs where taxes are taken out of their income. While filings by illegals are on the rise many of them, for fear of being found out, do not file for returns and so never get any of that money back.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24054024/
The rise in illegals filing tax returns also includes persons who are self employed because they believe it is possible that it may help them get their citizenship if they make sure that they are paying their taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16immig.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

*edit: Sorry, that should be: a compelling state interest in the absence of any better remedial solution.

 

[Kerrie]

It sounds like you are saying that the entirety of traffic police's efforts should be focused on preventing traffic deaths and that any effort of theirs at all taken away from that should be discouraged.

No, I did not say that about cops, I said that about random sobriety checks.

I think traffic cops should be looking for any and all crimes that fall within their jurisdiction and I think that that is probably what they are charged to do. That commonly includes thefts, drug offenses, prostitution, etc.

Commonly it is not up to police to check everyone for citizenship.

You're saying you've never been shopping at a store near Christmas that checked the receipt of everyone leaving the store?

Most major stores, such as Target, don't check everyone's receipt upon exiting. This would surely be bad customer service because most people don't shoplift.

That's why it is best to avoid the racial profiling issue entirely and check everyone. Again, if we remove the racial component entirely, would you then favor the idea? This is why I say the racial profiling issue is just a strawman.

So, why only Arizona? Why not New Mexico, Texas, California too? No one wants to admit it, but it really comes down to race because a blond Caucasian has less of a chance of being asked to show legal citizenship then a Hispanic. Southern Arizona has a major population of Hispanics who are legal. With this new law in place, those Hispanics who are legal must face that probability of being questioned because of their skin color. While they are here legally like you and I, it is a fear they must live with because of how they look.

Medicare and FICA are moneys that come back to you so they are separate from the normal federal budget.

No, FICA/HI taxes paid today go to the those who are receiving SS payments today. The money paid by the employer on behalf of the employee and employer is logged into an account for future reference for the employee's assessment of benefits. So in essence, if an illegal is given whatever citizenship status to be documented as a taxpayer, it is safe to assume they are contributing more to society than if they were deported.

They are not part of the day-to-day functioning of the government. All of the *normal* functions of government (everything from the space program to the financial balout and stimulus to roads to defense) are paid for by federal income taxes.

All the more reason to expedite immigration reform. A larger labor force that contributes taxes to America helps all of these programs

And again, slightly less than the bottom half of the country pays no federal income taxes (or receives money instead of paying it).

By them being documented workers, their employer pays FUTA & SUTA taxes. Just because someone falls below the poverty line in terms of wages, does not mean their labor doesn't contribute in some sort of way.

Furthermore: That doesn't make sense. Your refund doesn't have much to do with whether you pay a net tax. It is just about whether you've paid much more or less during the year than you should have...you know about witholding, right? What you pay on April 15th is not your tax, it is just the difference between the witholding and what your tax for that year is.

Quite aware of this Russ, I am an accounting major. But this has nothing to do with the new law in Arizona.

FICA and Medicare are money paid for your own insurance, so you get it back. Obviously, if someone is here illegally, they shouldn't be getting free healthcare or a free pension, so those taxes are irrelevant to the issue.

All the more reason for immigration reform by the federal government and not the state micromanaging her citizens.

No, Kerrie, clearly it is you who is posting based on bias because though you put the word in quotes, I didn't use the word "poor".

Why? Because new immigrants don't make much money and currently if you are in about the bottom half of incomes in the US, you don't pay federal income taxes.

While you didn't use the word "poor", this statement is suggesting that because they are new immigrants they won't contribute to our society anymore than if they weren't here at all.

The poverty line is somewhere around 15% and there is an entire 'nother third of the population above the poverty line who pays no federal income tax or gets money back from the federal government. These people are not poor, but they are still a drain on society.

I agree they are a drain on our social services because their status is illegal and undocumented. Again why the federal government needs to address this as a nationwide problem. I do not agree that those under the poverty line do not contribute to society. This is suggestive to a bias you have for low wage earners. Our society needs all classes willing to do whatever job they feel is suited for them to thrive. Those low wage jobs that *new immigrants* take are serving higher wage earners, possibly such as yourself.

So I postulate that a legal immigrant is likely to contribute more than an illegal immigrant because the effort required to become a legal immigrant makes for higher quality immigrants.

While I agree, requiring the police force to check for citizenship on anyone *they suspect* as being here illegally without any other suspicion of crimes is a tremendous amount of responsibility on those officers.

Definitely my preference. It couldn't possibly cost more to deport an illegal immigrant than it does to provide them free healthcare for life.

No, it just creates a lot of fear for the majority who are in Arizona legally. I lived in Phoenix for just over a year, and many of the Hispanics I worked with, were friends and neighbors with all came to the U.S. for the simple reason of providing a better life for themselves and families. The few drug runners who have committed major crimes are the problems that this law should be targeting, not an everyday common American citizen.

 

[Kerrie]

Many illegals do have regular jobs where taxes are taken out of their income. While filings by illegals are on the rise many of them, for fear of being found out, do not file for returns and so never get any of that money back.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24054024/
The rise in illegals filing tax returns also includes persons who are self employed because they believe it is possible that it may help them get their citizenship if they make sure that they are paying their taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16immig.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

While this is great, the msnbc article is stating that:
"The Internal Revenue Service doesn't track a worker's immigration status, yet many illegal immigrants fearful of deportation won't risk the government attention that will come from filing a return even if they might qualify for a refund. Economist William Ford of Middle Tennessee State University says there are no firm figures on how many taxpayers are in that situation."
This could end up being a disaster for the IRS if they are in fact over collecting. Perhaps all those over collected funds can help put new immigration policies in force.

 

[mgb_phys]

Right, so what is your point about "white guys"?

That was irony - everybody knows this law is for cops to target hispanics legal or illegal.

Obiously, this is silly because of the "decendents of immigrants" part. A "decendent of immigrant" is almost certainly a citizen.

Is the offspring of an illegal immigrant legal in the US?

Otherwise you have the problem of proving a chain of citizenship - since any illegal in the lineage would invalidate all the descendants.
And ironically the longer your ancestors have been in America the harder this is to prove - so all those people who claim that great^N grandfather came on the Mayflower had better find some documentation.

Whats actually going to happen is, the law will pass, then within the first few weeks the police will arrest the only hispanic judge/mayor/professor in Arizona while he is out jogging without his passport, or at the airport they will arrest some Puerto Rican soldier returning from Afghanistan in uniform who lost his wallet - and for a while replace Arizona will replace Arkansas in the John Stewart show as the stereotypical redneck state.

 

[cristo]

Is the offspring of an illegal immigrant legal in the US?

I thought US citizenship was obtained through birth-- i.e. anyone born in the country is a citizen.

I'm not entirely sure what I think of this law. I can see a major problem: what happens to a citizen who isn't carrying any documentation?

 

[edward]

The situation with illegal immigrants has gotten to be intolerable here in AZ. The law was passed out of pure frustration with the federal government.

A local rancher was killed last month. He was well known and had been on the ranch his entire life. Border patrol tracked the perpetrators back down to the border.

The drug smugglers are getting very violent. The drug runners and the people smugglers are the same group.

We do have many coming for a better life, and we have allowed it to happen, but we are now at capacity. Even with the new law we still have the revolving door. We deport them and they turn around and come back. We have detention facilities that are already overcrowded.

We also have been educating their children, but due to the economy it was necessary to terminate the jobs of 500 teachers.

The border Patrol claims 1,000 per day are still evading them. And that is just in the AZ sector.

There are check points set up on many highways that we all have to stop at. The illegals simply walk around them. The BP moves the check points around but the illegals soon learn where they are.

A big drug sting by ICE this week resulted in the arrest of over fifty people in border towns. They had automatic weapons and all kinds of scanners and radio equipment.

What people here really want is to close the border except at key locations.

 

[cronxeh]

...
What people here really want is to close the border except at key locations.

Impeach your governor. Vote out of office your Senator (that McCain guy). You need real leaders who will put the National Guard on the border patrol mission. Its a real state of emergency in Arizona, and not even a single illegal immigrant should be allowed to stay in Arizona. If the American citizens in Arizona don't act, soon Arizona will simply be Mexico's annexed territory, then Texas, then LA. Come to think of it, it already is.

Come to think of it, you people have become soft and weak. You've become complacent and scared - you don't deserve your freedom. Just give Arizona back to Mexico, it hasn't even been 100 years as a state yet, walk away let them have it.

 

[MotoH]

Impeach your governor. Vote out of office your Senator (that McCain guy). You need real leaders who will put the National Guard on the border patrol mission. Its a real state of emergency in Arizona, and not even a single illegal immigrant should be allowed to stay in Arizona. If the American citizens in Arizona don't act, soon Arizona will simply be Mexico's annexed territory, then Texas, then LA. Come to think of it, it already is.

Come to think of it, you people have become soft and weak. You've become complacent and scared - you don't deserve your freedom. Just give Arizona back to Mexico, it hasn't even been 100 years as a state yet, walk away let them have it.

I hope you are serious, because I enjoyed that.


As I said before, it makes absolutely no sense to ID a white person, when the majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican. Why should cops waste their time IDing every single person, when you can be efficient and only ID those who are probably illegal immigrants. Start at the Home Depot first.

You don't see drug sting houses in nice neighborhoods. They are in run-down, crime infested places so they fit in. You aren't going to catch any drug addicts in a nice residential neighborhood, but you sure as heck will get them flocking to you in a run down area.

 

[mheslep]

I don't believe a drivers license is proof of citizenship.

Not citizenship, but legal resident status is required to get one.

 

[mheslep]

I thought US citizenship was obtained through birth-- i.e. anyone born in the country is a citizen.

Yes it is. Status of the parents is irrelevant.

 

[cronxeh]

Yes it is. Status of the parents is irrelevant.

That too should be changed. And we won't even have to let Mexicans build casinos this time around. If the mother of the baby is in the country illegally then the baby by definition should be deemed an illegal - not a citizen. Its ludicrous to allow a citizenship status just because the baby is born here - it is inviting the parents to make the trip, daring them to come here. Who comes up with these laws??

Our anger is misplaced yet again - we should be pitch forking the Congress that passes such stupid legislation. This brings me back to McCain - retire him already.

 

[MotoH]

Anyone can get a fake drivers license, and from what I have seen, a lot of illegals have one.

 

[edward]

Anyone can get a fake drivers license, and from what I have seen, a lot of illegals have one.

Getting a fake liscense has become more difficult here after it was discover that a number of DMV personnel were selling them.

 

[russ_watters]

Not citizenship, but legal resident status is required to get one.

Again, that is not the case in all states. I provided a reference. Here's another: http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15696

And again, Obama supports giving driver's licenses to illegals.

 

[russ_watters]

The USSC has determined sobriety check points to be a legal exception to the search and seizure clause because it is based on a compelling state interest in making sure that the streets are safe from drunk drivers*. There also tend to be laws regulating the manner in which sobriety check points can be implemented, here this even includes putting an announcement in the local paper before the check point is scheduled. As already noted the protection from illegal search and seizure applies as well to your person and your documents. Randomly stopping people to "check their papers" is hardly likely to pass muster. The equal protection clause protects anyone from being singled out by law or the practical application of the law so all persons would have to be checked for legal citizenship. Good luck in proving to the court that there is a compelling state interest to randomly check all persons' citizenship status.

Either we're a country of laws or we aren't. If it isn't a "compelling state interest" to enforce our laws, why do we even have them?

Many illegals do have regular jobs where taxes are taken out of their income. While filings by illegals are on the rise many of them, for fear of being found out, do not file for returns and so never get any of that money back.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24054024/

While interesting and surprising, it doesn't really change the logic of the issue: The point was that suddenly granting illegals legal status will not increase income tax revenue.

Sorry, that should be: a compelling state interest in the absence of any better remedial solution.

This is a hot topic precisely because there are no good alternatives.

 

[russ_watters]

Commonly it is not up to police to check everyone for citizenship.

Yes, I know it isn't now. That's why we're having the discussion! Saying it isn't now is not an argument for why it should be.

Most major stores, such as Target, don't check everyone's receipt upon exiting. This would surely be bad customer service because most people don't shoplift.

Again, are you saying you've never experienced it? I have and I think it is a good idea during times of high theft.

So, why only Arizona? Why not New Mexico, Texas, California too?

Arizona is choosing to enforce laws that those states are choosing not to enforce. A lot has to do with trying to curry favor with hispanic votors - which is why Obama supports the absurd policy of granting drivers' licenses to illegals.

No one wants to admit it, but it really comes down to race because a blond Caucasian has less of a chance of being asked to show legal citizenship then a Hispanic.

Again, this is a strawman you are making up. *I* am suggesting we avoid the issue of race by challenging everyone.

No, FICA/HI taxes paid today go to the those who are receiving SS payments today. The money paid by the employer on behalf of the employee and employer is logged into an account for future reference for the employee's assessment of benefits. So in essence, if an illegal is given whatever citizenship status to be documented as a taxpayer, it is safe to assume they are contributing more to society than if they were deported.

You're missing the point. The point isn't "contributing more to society than if they were deported", it is making a positive vs a negative contribution. As I'm sure you know, SS is a losing proposition (people get more back than they pay in), so even that is a negative contribution. So while it is true that if made legal, they'll make a positive contribution to SS, it is also true that they will also then take their benefit - and the net contribution is a negative one. That's why talking about SS is just a smokescreen. The money that goes to the day-to-day operation of the federal government takes a lot of money and virtually no converted-legal immigrants would contribute to it.

And you're still ignoring the issue of regular income tax...

All the more reason to expedite immigration reform. A larger labor force that contributes taxes to America helps all of these programs.

You're not listening or are purposely ignoring the point: they will not be contributing to the federal income tax burden if made legal because their incomes are too small!

Quite aware of this Russ, I am an accounting major.

If you know all of this, Kerrie, then you must be purposely obfuscating the issue.

But this has nothing to do with the new law in Arizona.

You brought it up, Kerrie!

All the more reason for immigration reform by the federal government and not the state micromanaging her citizens.

On that, we are agreed.

While you didn't use the word "poor", this statement is suggesting that because they are new immigrants they won't contribute to our society anymore than if they weren't here at all.

Yes: because it is true.

I agree they are a drain on our social services because their status is illegal and undocumented. Again why the federal government needs to address this as a nationwide problem. I do not agree that those under the poverty line do not contribute to society. This is suggestive to a bias you have for low wage earners.

You're putting words in my mouth Kerrie: I didn't say they don't contribute to society, I said they don't contribute to federal income taxes. And it is true. It really feels like you're purposely talking past me here - ignoring what I'm saying. Again, you are the one who brought up the issue of illegals paying taxes. Not me, you. What you said was wrong, I corrected it and now you're obfuscating and namecalling to try to distract from the factually wrong claim you made.

 

[russ_watters]

I hope you are serious, because I enjoyed that.

As I said before, it makes absolutely no sense to ID a white person, when the majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican. Why should cops waste their time IDing every single person, when you can be efficient and only ID those who are probably illegal immigrants. Start at the Home Depot first.

While your logic is sound, I'm willing to take the hit in showing my ID every now and then if it keeps the squeamish hippies at bay. It really isn't a big deal.

 

[Kerrie]

And you're still ignoring the issue of regular income tax... You're not listening or are purposely ignoring the point: they will not be contributing to the federal income tax burden if made legal because their incomes are too small!

This is assuming that they never move up in income in relevance to the cost of living. If someone goes from being an illegal to a legal resident in this country, there is a great probability of them obtaining an education that moves them into a higher income bracket, thus contributing to ALL taxes. Your statement implies that once they are legal they will no longer have the motivation to improve their lives. Perhaps the first couple of years their incomes might be small, yet giving them legal residency allows them to pursue an education to make a higher wage thus contributing to the tax system.

I didn't say they don't contribute to society, I said they don't contribute to federal income taxes.

You did say they were a drain on society.

It really feels like you're purposely talking past me here - ignoring what I'm saying.

I can say the same thing-you are ignoring what I am saying. Sure, we can theoretically say that the police can question everyone without regards to race. But do you realistically think this will happen? That's the issue-what will really happen, not what should happen. We are talking about Arizona here, and from my experience of living in Phoenix, racism is prominent there.

Again, you are the one who brought up the issue of illegals paying taxes. Not me, you.

I brought it up to prove my point in the benefits of immigration reform to all those who are already here in America illegally.

What you said was wrong

According to who? You? What was I wrong about? Not agreeing with your opinion?

I corrected it and now you're obfuscating and namecalling to try to distract from the factually wrong claim you made.

There was no namecalling Russ.

Did your ancestors immigrate to the USA? Mine did, and had they been deported, I may not have had this freedom of speech in this forum and be a citizen of this great country.

 

[mheslep]

Again, that is not the case in all states. I provided a reference. Here's another: http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15696

Right, I should have said sufficient to get a license.

And again, Obama supports giving driver's licenses to illegals.

Which is outrageous.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Not citizenship, but legal resident status is required to get one.

I have not heard anything about it lately but they have been working on instituting a system here in CA that will allow noncitizens to get drivers licenses. While it is obviously not specifically stated apparently part of the practical outcome, and part of the intended aim, is that illegal aliens will have the ability to get drivers licenses.

Yes it is. Status of the parents is irrelevant.

Perhaps you only meant it in this way but illegal status of the parents is irrelevant. Legal status of parents is relevant in determining citizenship. This is part of my wonder at the Birthers though I guess perhaps "natural born" only includes those born within the borders.

Who comes up with these laws?? ... we should be pitch forking the Congress that passes such stupid legislation.

Its in the first clause of the fourteenth amendment and I am sorry but the people responsible, including the voters, who ratified are dead.

Either we're a country of laws or we aren't. If it isn't a "compelling state interest" to enforce our laws, why do we even have them?

Certainly. The constitution is only the first law of the nation. Why have it if we are not willing to uphold it?

While interesting and surprising, it doesn't really change the logic of the issue: The point was that suddenly granting illegals legal status will not increase income tax revenue.

I know that that was your point. I was responding to Kerrie's assumption that illegals do not contribute. Greater awareness leads to stronger arguments.

This is a hot topic precisely because there are no good alternatives.

I am unsure that this is the case though I can not claim to be particularly aware of the circumstances in AZ. It would seem that enforcing laws that require businesses to check the citizenship status of their employees to be compliant with the IRS is a good start. Last I heard immigrant rights activists were fighting these laws tooth and nail so I must assume that there is some level of effectiveness there. Requiring citizenship status to get drivers licenses. Tighter border controls. ect ect. That other means have been hard fought or not well implemented is not an argument that there are no good alternatives. Compromising the constitutional rights of everyone (note the constitution protects anyone inside these borders) as an easy solution does not seem a proper course.

Perhaps Edward or some other person more intimately aware of the legal issues in AZ can let us know about other legislative solutions that are in force and their usefulness or complications.

 

[jtbell]

I can see a major problem: what happens to a citizen who isn't carrying any documentation?

That's my problem with this law. There are millions of Hispanic citizens in this country, many of whose families have been in this country for generations. Remember, much of the southwest U.S. was once part of Mexico! They don't have immigration papers to carry around, any more than I do.

If we're serious about being able to check people's citizenship status on the street, we need an official national photo identity card. How would Congress vote on something like that?

I noted the other day that the sheriff of Pima County, which includes Tucson, announced that he has no intention of enforcing this law, because he thinks it won't stand up in court.

 

[russ_watters]

This is assuming that they never move up in income in relevance to the cost of living. If someone goes from being an illegal to a legal resident in this country, there is a great probability of them obtaining an education that moves them into a higher income bracket, thus contributing to ALL taxes.

That's silly, Kerrie. An adult immigrant is unlikely to become educated and move up - adults just don't do that. Now their kids are likely to move up because they will be educated in the US.

Your statement implies that once they are legal they will no longer have the motivation to improve their lives.

Not at all. It's simpy an issue of the barrier being higher for an immigrant due to lack of education and language issues.

Perhaps the first couple of years their incomes might be small, yet giving them legal residency allows them to pursue an education to make a higher wage thus contributing to the tax system.

I'd be very interested to know what fraction of adult immigrants (legal or not) get extra education in the US. I'd be shocked to learn it was more than a tiny percentage. It just makes no sense that it would be common.

You did say they were a drain on society.

In the context of their lack of contribution to the federal income tax. You're trying to broaden it beyond what it is obvious that I meant.

I can say the same thing-you are ignoring what I am saying.

No, Kerrie, I'm correcting the facutally untruths that you are saying and I am responding to exactly what you mean - in no case have I demonstrated that I misunderstood what you said (otherwise I'm sure you would have corrected me!). The difference is when I say "federal income tax", your response doesn't address the issue of the federal income tax but instead shifts the goal posts to talk about things like social security and Medicare. That's an intentional effort to distract from my point instead of directly addressing it. You've done it, I haven't. When you mention social security, I respond even though it was off topic because I want to be clear on the tax contribution issue.

I'm simply pointing out that you are factually wrong about much of what you are saying and constructing logical strawmen about most of the rest. Very little of our discussion here - on either side - has been based on pure opinion.

Sure, we can theoretically say that the police can question everyone without regards to race. But do you realistically think this will happen? That's the issue-what will really happen, not what should happen. We are talking about Arizona here, and from my experience of living in Phoenix, racism is prominent there.

It is not that difficult to set up a scenario/legal framework where everyone is checked. A sobriety checkpoint is a perfect example. If everyone's being checked at a sobriety chekcpoint, then it really isn't possible for racism to play any part.

I brought it up to prove my point in the benefits of immigration reform to all those who are already here in America illegally.

According to who? You? What was I wrong about? Not agreeing with your opinion?

You made a claim of fact about taxes that is factually wrong. I corrected it. You obfuscated by going off on a tangent about other taxes.

Did your ancestors immigrate to the USA? Mine did, and had they been deported, I may not have had this freedom of speech in this forum and be a citizen of this great country.

Of course mine did. Legally. Did yours come here legally?

There was no namecalling Russ.

I object to your thinly veiled allegations of racism, kerrie. In your statements about my racial or class-based bias and in the racist stramen you are setting up.

 

[russ_watters]

That's my problem with this law. There are millions of Hispanic citizens in this country, many of whose families have been in this country for generations. Remember, much of the southwest U.S. was once part of Mexico! They don't have immigration papers to carry around, any more than I do.

If we're serious about being able to check people's citizenship status on the street, we need an official national photo identity card.

Yes, a real national ID (or standardized state ID that covers relevant identity issues like citizenship) is the answer.

 

[Shalashaska]

Yes, a real national ID (or standardized state ID that covers relevant identity issues like citizenship) is the answer.

That, and aggressively pursuing criminal charges against employers of illegal immigrants. The employers represent a highly visible and legally culpable group, whereas canvasing the country is patently absurd. Oh right, I forgot, people who make money from illegals vote, whereas illegals do not. Silly me. Immigrants who come here for jobs can be indirectly dissuaded by cracking down on employers, and THAT is simple in practice, if not politically. When we take down drug dealers, the object is to roll that back to higher level distributors... in this case we have the option of STARTING from the top.

Not that it matters; immigration is a fact of life, and will continue to be. A standardized national ID would be fantastic, but it's not the best way to approach the issue of illegal immigration.

 

[skeptic2]

Perhaps instead of laws like Arizona's, the U.S. consulates could offer a work visa that would guarantee the holder the right to earn at least minimum wage. This would encourage them to work on the books and pay taxes. This might also have the effect of not driving down wages for those competing for minimum wages.

 

[russ_watters]

That, and aggressively pursuing criminal charges against employers of illegal immigrants.

I meant to the issue of being able to tell legals from illegals, but yes, to the larger issue of illegal immigration, that's another part of the solution.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Perhaps instead of laws like Arizona's, the U.S. consulates could offer a work visa that would guarantee the holder the right to earn at least minimum wage. This would encourage them to work on the books and pay taxes. This might also have the effect of not driving down wages for those competing for minimum wages.

I am fairly certain that this is already done. A significant percentage of illegals in the US actually originally came here on work visas and simply stayed after their visa expired.

 

[Shalashaska]

I meant to the issue of being able to tell legals from illegals, but yes, to the larger issue of illegal immigration, that's another part of the solution.

I know, I just think it's the FIRST solution. The ID system is important for reasons beyond immigration however, and so very doable now. I think cracking down on employers first might be a good-faith gesture to show this isn't a racial witch hunt. Hell, if a national ID had RFIDs, cops wouldn't even have to stop you, but just check tags. A little Big Brother, but it could work. Hell, traffic lights could have sensors to check, and encryption could be used to ensure fidelity.

That would be practical compared to stretching our police powers to smack around the constitution and distract from their primary role.

 

[skeptic2]

I am fairly certain that this is already done. A significant percentage of illegals in the US actually originally came here on work visas and simply stayed after their visa expired.

It's true there are H1Bs but those are initiated by the employer and do not guarantee a minimum wage. In fact many employers satisfy the requirement that they can't find any Americans to fill the position by offering the position at a salary no American would take. I discovered once that an African working in my department with an H1B and doing the same job I was, was earning about 1/4 what I was.

I don't believe there are any visas offered that allow the holder to choose his employer or that guarantee a minimum wage from an employer. The minimum wage guarantee is important because it offers incentive for the immigrant to enter legally, it keeps wages higher, it would increase revenue with withholding taxes and encourages employers to hire U.S. citizens. The last because if he is required to pay Americans and foreigners the same, why not hire the American?

 

[CRGreathouse]

A little Big Brother, but it could work.

Just a little?

 

[Char. Limit]

So everybody that isn't blonde and blue eyed has to carry a passport everywhere in case of "Papiere, Bitte" ?

Really, was this necessary?

"blonde and blue eyed"

"Papiere, Bitte"

Don't you know that comparing anything to the Nazis has become completely meaningless, because literally EVERYTHING has been compared to them at some point?

The only thing that's stopping me from crying "Godwin's Law!" is the fact that this law does sound like something that would go over well in das Dritte Reich.