Uncomfortable connections in Arizona the anti-immigrant movement.

At least u have begun to spell "non sequitur" correctly, Professor.
I was simply AGREEING with u that thay have NO SHAME.
Thay have PRIDE!!! in which I join empathetically and vicariously, as an ex-citizen of Arizona.

That just proves that u r NOT rong ALL the time, Plain.
If anyone tells u that u r, simply DON'T believe them!!





David

Plain,
Note that text which was attributed to me in Post: # 3,986,872
is false.

I did NOT write that:
"what was the question care to translate it into english plesae?
i cant type but i can read english and that AIN'T IT".

That was written by another person.
I did not challenge your sentence structure.





David

The chief explanation for this law was the drug problem. As it turns out, one of the druglords is an American. So, what are the people of AZ going to do? Wage war on Texas, as that is where this man lives?

Pride in what? Making their state the laughing stock of the country?

BTW, it is completely contradictory of you to complain of spelling due to your campaign to spell in what you think is a phonetic manner.

People have asked you which of the many American accents would you endorse as the source of this so-called phonetic system.

I wish to point out to you that there are now a great many "Rs" appearing in words where that are none. People say "surpress" for "suppress." That is the first one that comes to mind, but I have noticed that an R is being included in many words in which the first syllable ends in a vowel.

But, we are supposed to be quiet about all the ad hominems that are constantly spewed from the conservatives here. What ever happened to equality?

Actually, everything good that ever happened in this country happened because of the philosophy liberalism and the ability of the small handful of true liberals to convince others that they (the liberals) are right.

But, i guess you liked slavery and you preferred a time when women had no rights.

The Dems have brought the country social security, Medicare, Medicaid, health-care reform, civil rights, depression-era jobs, food stamps, AmeriCorp, etc. The Reps have brought us Medicare D, the worst legislation in history. They also brought us ????????????

Two huge recessions useing the same economic policies but 75 years apart.

How could I forget!

Pride in fighting against the Mexican inturders, an inspiration for all anti-liberal citizens.

Anti-liberal? Notice that these people you love use violence.

This NYT piece examines some of the difficulties posed by the AZ situation:

Arizona Law Reveals Split Within G.O.P.
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
LOS ANGELES " Republican lawmakers and candidates are increasingly divided over illegal immigration " torn between the need to attract Latino support, especially at the ballot box, and rallying party members who support tougher action.

Arizona’s new measure, which requires that the police check the documents of anyone they stop or detain whom they suspect of being in the country illegally, has forced politicians far and wide to take a stance. But unlike in Washington, where a consensus exists among establishment Republicans, the fault lines in the states " where the issue is even more visceral and immediate " are not predictable.

Conservative Republican governors like Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia and Rick Perry of Texas have criticized the Arizona law. But some more moderate Republicans, like Tom Campbell, who is running in the party’s Senate primary in California, have supported it.

The decision on whether to support or oppose the law can have almost immediate political consequences. The latest evidence may be Meg Whitman’s declining fortunes.

For months, Ms. Whitman, the former chief executive of eBay, enjoyed a substantial lead over her principal rival for the Republican nomination for governor of California, Steve Poizner. But in recent weeks, she has seen her advantage slip significantly, in no small part because Mr. Poizner has hammered her on her opposition to the Arizona law.

Finding herself increasingly on the defensive on the issue, Ms. Whitman even proclaims in a new advertisement: “I’m 100 percent against amnesty for illegal immigrants. Period.”

Nonetheless, a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California showed her advantage falling 23 percentage points since March, down to 38 percent versus 29 for Mr. Poizner.

In states with hotly contested elections, several Republican candidates are finding their positions mobile, reflecting the delicacy of the issue and a growing body of polls that suggest many voters support the Arizona law.

In Florida, for instance, Attorney General Bill McCollum, who is running for governor, now says he approves of the law, though he called it “far out” two weeks ago; Marco Rubio, the state’s Republican Senate nominee, has also shifted his stance.

State Republicans now find themselves in a balancing act, trying to seize a moment of Congressional stalemate to demonstrate leadership while not repelling voters on either side of the debate, a challenge that is particularly daunting for those in a primary fight.

“I think we need to be very careful about immigration,” said Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush. “I applaud Arizona for taking action, but I think the rhetoric on all sides ought to be lowered.”

Mr. Rove and other strategists who worked for Mr. Bush were proponents of an immigration overhaul that included a path to legal status.

At the same time, state legislatures are racing to create their own laws, making it more likely than ever that the nation will end up with a patchwork of state legislation instead of a comprehensive national approach in the next year or two.

In the first three months of this year, legislators in 45 states introduced 1,180 bills and resolutions relating to immigration; 107 laws have passed, compared with 222 in all of 2009, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.

“The kindling has been lit in the states,” said Matthew Dowd, a political consultant from Texas who was the chief strategist for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.

“With immigration, the choices you have to make are hard, and most people in Washington don’t really like to make hard choices,” he added. “Hard choices are much more often made in the states.”

Democrats have their own problems with the issue. Some more left-leaning factions prefer a path to legal status for illegal immigrants without the tough enforcement measures that Democrats in Congress have proposed.

But the divisions appear more acute among Republicans, some of whom fear that the party will become identified with punitive immigration laws at a time when Hispanics are a growing part of the electorate " particularly in emergent battleground states like Colorado and Nevada.

“I am a grandson of an Irish immigrant,” Mr. McDonnell of Virginia said in an e-mail message. “The Hispanic population in this country contributes to our culture, economic prosperity and quality of life.”

Republicans who are not facing primary challenges are far more likely to take a more moderate view of immigration, and many, particularly in border states, are aware that business groups that depend on illegal immigrants for labor support a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

“If I am running in a primary without opposition, I have the luxury of not having to worry about what I say on this issue,” said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politicsat the University of Southern California.

The dynamics of immigration politics vary vastly by state, even among those with heavy immigrant populations, and can reflect local concerns. In Texas, for instance, Latinos have a lot of political influence and have elected candidates for many years. The population there is often closely aligned with the political leadership of some cities and even with state government.

In Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer, who faces a Republican primary challenge, was under extreme pressure from her own party for advocating a tax increase, something now seen as largely mitigated by her signing of the immigration bill.

But it is also true that a spate of new polls show support, although tempered, for the state’s tough new immigration law, which is clearly weighing on the minds of candidates.

In a recent New York Times/CBS poll, 57 percent of the 1,079 adults queried said the federal government should determine the laws on illegal immigration, and 51 percent said the Arizona law was “about right” in its approach to the problem.

In a poll released by the Pew Research Center this month, 59 percent of 994 respondents said they approved of the Arizona law, while 32 percent disapproved. An Associated Press/Univision poll found that 42 percent of those asked favored the Arizona law and 24 percent opposed it.

“It is really how you ask the question,” said Sarah Taylor, who was Mr. Bush’s political affairs director. “And it is tied up in people’s feelings about their own family’s immigration experience, and then you have elements of race.”

While the federal government ponders, numerous states have already moved to emulate Arizona’s law, while others have moved forward with other measures, from laws that prohibit driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants to those that improve classes for immigrant children in public schools.

The issue is likely to be a problem for both parties throughout this election year.

“People like Perry and McDonnell and others realize this is a very divisive issue for our party,” said Linda Chavez, the Republican chairwoman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative research organization, referring to the governors of Texas and Virginia. “The fact is, you can’t secure the borders if you don’t fix immigration, because the two go hand in hand.”

Some thought on immigration and crime from the site care2.com:

Illegal trafficking in both people and narcotics is a problem plaguing the Arizona border. It's why the Obama administration pledged 1200 National Guard troops near the border. And supporters of SB 1070 would have you believe that it's a crime wave tied to scores of illegal immigrants. Not so fast.

Violent crime in Arizona, and other states that have a significant immigrant populations, has been consistently on the decline, especially recently. For example, after a spike in 2006 and 2007, the number of violent crimes reported in Phoenix dropped to 10,465 in 2008 and to 8,730 in 2009. That decrease even includes murder. In 2006 Phoenix had a murder rate of 234. That dropped to 167 in 2008 and 122 in 2009 despite the consistent uptick in violence across the border and more concentrated trafficking networks. But supporters of SB 1070 swear the illegal immigrant community is overwhelming local law enforcement resources. What can explain these numbers?

Phoenix law enforcement chalks the drop up to their concerted efforts to connect and work with the immigrant communities--a task they claim will be made much more difficult by SB 1070. According to Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, the new immigration law "takes officers away from doing what our main core mission is, and that is to make our community safe, and instead tells us to become immigration officers and enforce routine immigration laws that I do not think we have the authority even to enforce. If you want to keep preventing violent crime, you do not waste your limited manpower on job-seeking "illegals.'"

Phoenix is not alone in witnessing a drop in crime while immigration surged. El Paso, Texas remains one of the safest cities in the country with only 12 murders last year, despite the fact that right across the border a drug war rages in Juarez, Mexico. San Antonio has witnessed a similar drop, while a city like Detroit that is not a hub for job-seeking immigrants has watched crime, particularly violent crime, continue to climb.

And what about the rancher Robert Krentz, murdered by a suspected illegal immigrant in March? As reported by the Arizona Republic and according to Arizona Border Patrol, Krentz is "the only American murdered by a suspected illegal immigrant in at least a decade within the agency's Tuscon sector, the busiest smuggling route among the Border Patrol's nine coverage regions along the U.S.-Mexican border."

This data, compiled independently by both the F.B.I. and the University of Colorado-Boulder shows that, contrary to political rhetoric from the right, immigration, and even illegal immigration, does not make communities more dangerous. The research, which appeared in a peer-reviewed paper in the June 2010 issue of Social Science Quarterly, specifically avoids mistaking correlation for causation, instead providing the most compelling data to date to back up claims that the anti-immigration sentiment in this country is rooted not in fact but simply in fear.

The data is even more compelling than simply rebutting the ideological argument that immigration is connected to crime. The evidence suggests that immigration appears to make the cities immigrants call home safer. According to Harvard sociologist Robert J. Sampson, that's because immigrants often move into neighborhoods abandoned by locals and often have tighter family structures which can stabilize urban neighborhoods on the brink.

And a crack-down in immigration may just have the opposite effect, much to the dismay of SB 1070 supporters. Law enforcement officers like Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck notes that when immigrants fear being arrested for immigration offenses they stop cooperating with law enforcement. These communities will withdraw further into themselves, making those immigrant ghettos ripe for exploitation and abuse and further marginalize, rather than integrate, immigrants into the American experience. Not only does this make getting information more difficult for law enforcement, it increases the amount of crimes law enforcement needs to respond to.

These law enforcement officials also emphasize that creating a strategy to deal with the real problem of the trafficking network along the border is a very different thing than dealing with illegal immigrants. Oftentimes those immigrants are victims of that network rather than perpetrators, another fact obscured by those championing the new immigration measures.

This is where the rhetoric on this issue needs some clarity and it needs some change. Let's distinguish between job-seekers and traffickers, employers and exploiters, and really take this issue head on. That means talking about cheap and easy guns from the United States finding their way into Mexico. It means talking about an American appetite for drugs that fuels cross-border supplies and violence. It means talking about an assumption that strawberries in Minnesota should be available in February and they should be inexpensive--an assumption that fosters cheap agricultural practices and even cheaper labor. It means talking about an American fascination with new construction and an economy propped up by a housing boom--all made possible only through the kind of cheap and expendable labor undocumented workers provide.

And when those like Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer start having that conversation that's when those of us who oppose SB 1070 will start to believe their efforts are rooted in anything other than fear and anti-Latino bias.

Yes: I am ANTI-liberal.
As well thay SHOUD. If there were enuf violence, then we coud keep those Mexicans out of America.
Thay sneak IN when thay find it too quiet and too peaceful.

If thay were met with gunfire,
then thay 'd go SOUTH, in a hurry.





David

We shoud lay minefields & booby traps along out Southern Border.

i kinda think antipersonnel mines are illegal in this casde, the mdexicans aren't invading with armor, mines wouldn't work, but maybe an electrified fence?

I've heard a few interviews recently with the folks involved with this research. Fascinating stuff in there.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/27/reading-ranting-and-arithmetic.html


link to an abstract of the Wadsworth study

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123341598/abstract

link to the FBI report

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelimsem2009/index.html

If it is illegal to defend our nation's borders, then its better to change the law.

and just for Davey