More than Mexicans crossing the border (Maybe AZ has the right idea)

Regardless, even if it was just extant law (again, the US federal law is far more harsh than the AZ law anyway),

It isn't an issue you can just say "regardless" to, you made a claim about the increased effectiveness of a new law in relation to the old law but used the actions under the old law and said how good it was.
Also how on earth can the Arizona laws be less harsh when their penalties are to be applied in addition to the federal penalty? Plus of course with their financial clawback they put in how do you think the penalty can ever be served?

You said it was totalitarian. Nonsense. Totalitarian states point the guns INWARDS.

You miss the point entirely tater, you are proposing summary execution without trial for what is legally a rather minor offence. That is what makes it like a policy in a crazy dictatorship.

I notice you avoid entirely the questions of cost and effectiveness, you didn't do the eminent domain angle either or the increasing power of the evil feds.
Does that demonstrate that you didn't think your proposals through much?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It isn't an issue you can just say "regardless" to, you made a claim about the increased effectiveness of a new law in relation to the old law but used the actions under the old law and said how good it was.

Also how on earth can the Arizona laws be less harsh when their penalties are to be applied in addition to the federal penalty? Plus of course with their financial clawback they put in how do you think the penalty can ever be served?

Easy. The federal law is more "harsh" (from a civil rights standpoint) in that it requires zero suspicion of illegality. An INS guy can ask anyone for papers merely to determine their status with no probable cause.

The AZ law can add effectiveness for the simple reason that THE FEDERAL LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED.

It's not that the fed rules are bad, it's that the feds are not doing their job. If they did their jobs, zero illegals would cross, and the States would not be left with huge bills to pay for them.

The baseline should be that all illegals have to show proof of ID at some point or get kicked out. So the fact that millions NEVER get asked is a bad starting point. That the feds fail so miserably (demonstrable given the 12 million illegals here) is proof that actual enforcement is needed. The AZ law in fact will only marginally improve enforcement, I think the net impact will be near zero—proof is the fact that CA's laws are already very similar to AZ's new law, and look at all the problems caused by illegals there.

You miss the point entirely tater, you are proposing summary execution without trial for what is legally a rather minor offence. That is what makes it like a policy in a crazy dictatorship.

I notice you avoid entirely the questions of cost and effectiveness, you didn't do the eminent domain angle either or the increasing power of the evil feds.
Does that demonstrate that you didn't think your proposals through much?

Armed men crossing the border have a name—invaders. Would you arrest and Mirandize Soviets coming across the German border in the Cold War (turned hot)? No, you'd shoot them.

My preference would not be shooting, I think the border could be secured without it, but fear of death would go a long way to stop what is extremely casual crossing right now. Pick and choose, and shoot armed invaders first. There are countless secret cam videos online of armed men crossing in the desert. I call armed me "invaders."

IMO, one of the few, legitimate powers of the federal government is defense. People coming across our sovereign border without permission are invaders and should be dealt with as such. As far as eminent domain, presumably you mean taking land for a fence and road alongside. That's certainly an issue, but I know land owners are not permitted to defend their property vs the illegals, either. If I owned border land and people were ruining my property, leaving trash, etc, I'd love to pick them off from my portal with a beer in one hand (yeah, I'd shoot people for littering, too, I'm sort of a radical "environmentalist" in that sense, I always pack out every thing I hike in with when I hike, I ****ing hate litterbugs).

Might be worth asking the land owners what they think first, however. I suppose they could be given the option of securing their length of border themselves to some standard—not sure if they're even allowed to do so on their own, frankly.

The AZ law can add effectiveness for the simple reason that THE FEDERAL LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED.

Caps Lock strikes again, it was the federal law you were using as an example of just how effective enforcement was.
You cannot cite an example of how good the enforcement of immigration law is then suddenly change your mind because its not the law you thought it was.

If they did their jobs, zero illegals would cross

That has to be the most ridiculous claim ever.
Take Israel as an example, they do some really serious border enforcement, they go all out on military, Border force and police deployment, they still get piles of illegal immigrants crossing the border.
Look at Britain, they do border control in their own ports, around the coast and on mainland Europe and still get loads of illegals.

Armed men crossing the border have a name—invaders.

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Though if you want to explore that angle how many hundreds of recent incidents of armed men crossing the border happened, meaning of course Mexican and American border patrols accidentally crossing the line as it was discussed by your government and the Mexican government last week.

My preference would not be shooting, I think the border could be secured without it, but fear of death would go a long way to stop what is extremely casual crossing right now.

Has the threat of a death worked well in the past?

As far as eminent domain, presumably you mean taking land for a fence and road alongside.

No the question I posed was about a very wide strip of land nearly 2000 miles long, which I am sure you can grasp is one hell of a lot of land.
A fence and a road alongside would be completely ineffective for what you proposed.

[SteamWake]

Miami buisness finds a way to profit from the situation. "Gringo Masks"

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/weird/M...-94782694.html

Here is the bill... read it (unlike our senators/president)

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Actually I do think they have read it but deny that they have so that they can plead ignorance of the bills content.

Here is the bill... read it (unlike our senators/president)

That is no longer the actual bill.

Actually I do think they have read it but deny that they have so that they can plead ignorance of the bills content.

Perhaps they read the new version instead so they wouldn't be ignorant of the content, after all when Brewer signed 1070 she did say it wouldn't last in that form.
Its good that they realised the financial clawback wouldn't work, but by only diluting it they are just showing that despite knowing it isn't going to work they are at present unwilling to admit they are going to have to saddle the States taxpayers with very hefty bill in the end.....unless they change their much publicised really popular "populist" law again, and again and again in which case they may as well have never bothered in the first place and should just taken more of the already existing option and let the federal government pick up most of the bill.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That is no longer the actual bill.

Perhaps they read the new version instead so they wouldn't be ignorant of the content, after all when Brewer signed 1070 she did say it wouldn't last in that form.
Its good that they realised the financial clawback wouldn't work, but by only diluting it they are just showing that despite knowing it isn't going to work they are at present unwilling to admit they are going to have to saddle the States taxpayers with very hefty bill in the end.....unless they change their much publicised really popular "populist" law again, and again and again in which case they may as well have never bothered in the first place and should just taken more of the already existing option and let the federal government pick up most of the bill.

If you will take a moment and look at it you will see that it contains the amendments.

But just to make sure for you...

http://azgovernor.gov/documents/SB10...edByHB2162.pdf

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

If you will take a moment and look at it you will see that it contains the amendments.

But just to make sure for you...

http://azgovernor.gov/documents/SB10...edByHB2162.pdf

they wont